Compel withdrawal on unresolved domain risk
Draft
Compel withdrawal on unresolved domain risk
Layer 4. Control AUTAuthorization
Allocation
| L4-AUT-06 | |
|---|---|
| Decides | Domain owner: CISO, DPO or Head of Risk |
| Consulted | Business Accountable Executive |
| Executes | Platform Owner |
| Evidence | Compelled withdrawal record with the domain basis stated |
In plain terms
A domain owner stops a system over the accountable executive’s position. A safety valve, and it is deliberately uncomfortable.
What is being judged
Whether the risk in this domain is unacceptable regardless of the business case, and whether the domain owner is prepared to hold that position against an executive who disagrees.
The framework includes this row knowing it cuts against the single accountability line. A domain owner accountable for security or privacy who cannot stop a system holds accountability without authority, which is the condition the whole framework objects to.
It should be used rarely. Routine use means the accountable executive has been displaced and the composite accountability model is no longer operating. The framework treats frequency as the signal, not any single invocation.
What this decision does not cover
It does not resolve the disagreement, only the immediate exposure. The disagreement goes to L4-RSK-05 arbitration.
When it fires
On event. When a domain owner declines to accept a risk and the accountable executive intends to proceed. On discovery of a condition that would not have been accepted had it been known.
On cycle. None.
What you need before deciding
The specific domain finding and why it is unacceptable. What withdrawal costs, since a compelled withdrawal is a business event. Whether arbitration under L4-RSK-05 could resolve it faster than withdrawal.
How this goes wrong
The routine veto: a domain owner using compulsion in place of negotiation, after which the accountable executive stops treating their own signature as meaningful. Compulsion with no arbitration: the system is withdrawn, the disagreement is never resolved, and it recurs on the next system. Withdrawal as escalation theater: invoked to force attention rather than because the risk warranted it.
Related decisions
Escalation L4-RSK-05 arbitration, which should normally follow.
Reverses L4-AUT-01, L4-RSK-03.
Contested recorded as KL-13; the alternative is that refusal forces arbitration rather than immediate withdrawal.
Instrument references
None. No instrument grants a risk function authority to override a business accountability line.
Correction
The maintainer answers corrections. There is no service level. Responses are best-effort and opportunistic within a reasonable time: a correction raised on a Monday is answered that week or sooner.