An analyst multiplies 'pretty likely' by 'bad' to rank a risk without opening the organization's defined likelihood and consequence scales. What should replace that habit?

Defined likelihood and consequence scales exist so ratings are consistent and auditable. Ad-hoc adjectives such as 'pretty likely' and 'bad' are not interchangeable with official levels. Analysts should map evidence to the organization's published definitions before combining scores. Informal language undermines comparable risk evaluation.