Risk relevance field and its usage

[Marek Remi_]

Hi, 
I would like to better understand the purpose of the Risk Relevance field on the Risk record, and why it is OOTB hidden when “Inherit from Risk Statement” is set to false. 

Does this behavior imply that Risk Relevance is not applicable at the Risk level when inheritance from the Risk Statement is disabled? If so, could someone explain the design rationale behind this? From my perspective, I don’t clearly see the benefit of hiding this field in this scenario. 

Could you proivide me some real life examples?

Thanks a lot in advance. 

[VaishnaviK43271]

Hi @Marek Remi_ !!

The Risk Relevance field shows how important a Risk is compared to its parent Risk Statement.

• When inheritance is on, the Risk automatically gets the relevance from the Risk Statement.

• When inheritance is off, the field is hidden by default.

Why?

1. To keep things consistent: If each Risk could have a different relevance, it might conflict with the Risk Statement.

2. To avoid confusion: Users won’t see a field that doesn’t have automatic guidance.

3. To simplify the interface: Only show fields that matter for the current setup.

Does this mean Risk Relevance can’t be used at the Risk level?

• Not at all. You can still make it visible and set relevance manually, but the system hides it by default to encourage consistency.

Example:

• Risk Statement: “Non-compliance with GDPR” → High relevance.

• Specific Risk: “Privacy notices not updated”

  • If inherit = true → relevance = High automatically.

  • If inherit = false → field is hidden, but you can customize it to set a different relevance if needed.

In short: The field is hidden by default to keep Risk Relevance aligned with the Risk Statement and avoid mistakes, but it can be used manually if your process requires it.

Mark this as Helpful if it clarifies the issue.
Accept the solution if this answers your question.

Regards,
Vaishnavi
Associate Technical Consultant