Which practice best demonstrates that owners are being held accountable within the use case inventory?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
A name in a spreadsheet isn’t accountability. You need owners to respond to findings and log the decisions and remediation actions, with those records visible in the inventory.
Full Explanation
Real accountability shows up as a visible trail of decisions and remediation actions the owner actually took in response to findings. The practice that requires owners to respond to review findings and log the decisions and remediation actions taken, with those records visible in the inventory, demonstrates that owners are being held accountable.
Listing owners by name only, with no requirement to act on findings, is incorrect because a name with no obligation to act provides no real accountability.
Notifying owners of findings but resolving findings automatically by the platform is incorrect because automatic resolution removes the human judgement accountability is meant to capture.
Rotating owners out before any findings from their tenure are resolved is incorrect because it breaks the link between the person responsible and the outcome.
For the exam, look for a documented, attributable trail of action as the evidence of accountability, not just a name field.