An administrator finds that a pilot deployment proceeded because 'everyone involved meant well and trusted each other', with no documented control gating the release. What does this situation call for?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Trust is nice to have, but you can't audit it. You need a documented gate with ownership and evidence, because good intentions aren't a governance control.
Full Explanation
The correct answer is the defined workflow with documented ownership and evidence requirements, since governance requires controls that can be checked and evidenced; relying on the good intentions of the people involved leaves no way to verify, later, that the right checks actually happened.
The team-building exercise so members trust each other even more is incorrect because interpersonal trust does not create an auditable control regardless of how strong it is.
The reduction in the number of people involved in the deployment is incorrect because reducing headcount does not introduce ownership, policy, or evidence requirements.
The informal verbal agreement to be more careful next time is incorrect because a verbal agreement is, again, unrecorded and unauditable, the same underlying problem.
For the exam, when a scenario relies on trust or intentions instead of a documented control, the fix is to define and record the control.