Before escalating to senior management, a risk practitioner must understand how serious the issue is for the enterprise. That means first assessing the business impact of the noncompliance (financial, regulatory, reputational, operational) so that management is given contextualized information rather than just "we are noncompliant." In ISACA's CRISC framework, risk assessment always requires understanding likelihood and impact before risk response and escalation decisions. Evaluating the potential impact allows:
* Identification of which processes, customers, or jurisdictions are affected.
* Estimation of the magnitude of legal/regulatory exposure.
* Understanding whether immediate containment actions are needed.
* Preparation of meaningful options and recommendations for senior management.
Options A and B (evaluating controls and implementing compensating controls) are important later, as part of risk response / treatment. However, without first knowing the impact, you cannot determine how urgent or extensive the remedial actions must be.
Option C (evaluating industry response) may be useful for benchmarking, but it does not help the enterprise understand its own specific exposure and obligations and therefore is secondary to an internal impact assessment.
This aligns with CRISC guidance that the primary result of a risk assessment is input for risk-aware decisions and that risk professionals must assess likelihood and impact to determine risk significance before escalation and treatment (see the risk assessment and risk profile-related guidance in your CRISC notes).