Fearlus OS in Action: A Cybersecurity Story
At 5:12 AM, the CISO was already awake—scanning reports and dreading the upcoming board call. Audit findings had been recurring for over a year, the team was burned out from chasing fixes, and now a surprise early audit was inbound. Meanwhile, leadership wanted confidence: were they spending the right amount on risk? Could they defend their budget? Were their controls working? This is the story of how one organization used the Fearlus Operating System to answer those questions — and regain control.
The Risk They Couldn't Ignore
The risk was clear: unauthorized access to sensitive systems. They had controls in place — multi-factor authentication, change control processes, incident response protocols — but no one could say with certainty whether it was enough. The appetite threshold had been set, but the gap between aspiration and execution remained unquantified. Audit teams wanted evidence. Executives wanted clarity. The Fearlus Operating System gave them both.
Structure Before Action
The risk had already been identified. Unauthorized access to sensitive systems had shown up in three audits, and three controls were already in place. Leadership had also defined a risk appetite: low tolerance for data security risks. But now came the critical gap to close — what does “low” actually mean?
The team translated appetite into a quantitative threshold: a residual risk score (🎯TARGET) of 0.936 or lower, calculated as impact 3.9 x likelihood 0.24. With the threshold defined, the next step was to calculate the inherent risk score (IR) — the organization's exposure if no controls were in place. That came to an impact of 4.0 and a likelihood of 0.90, resulting in an inherent risk score of 3.60.
Inherent Risk Score
| Likelihood → / Impact ↓ | Unlikely (≤ 0.25) |
Possible (0.26 - 0.50) |
Likely (0.51 - 0.75) |
Probable (0.76 - 1.00) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 - Critical | IR | |||
| 3 - Major | 🎯TARGET | |||
| 2 - Moderate | ||||
| 1 - Minor |
The next step was to evaluate the three existing controls: Multi-Factor Authentication, Weekly Change Review Board, and the Incident Response Plan. Each control was categorized, costed, and scored for actual effectiveness. They were then weighted based on control type — preventive, detective, corrective — and the results used to calculate a residual risk score (RR).
| Control | Type | Annual Cost | Effectiveness Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| PAC001: Multi-Factor Authentication | Preventive (likelihood) | $35,000 | 0.264 |
| PAC002: Change Review Board | Preventive (likelihood) | $18,000 | 0.18 |
| PAC003: Incident Response Plan | Corrective (impact) | $25,000 | 0.17 |
After applying the weighted scoring model, the residual likelihood was 0.456 and the residual impact was 3.83, resulting in a residual risk score of 1.746. This was still above the appetite threshold of 0.936, but a significant improvement from the inherent risk of 3.60. The team had real progress and a precise target. The next step was to close the remaining gap.
Residual Risk (Post-Control) & Target
| Likelihood → / Impact ↓ | Unlikely (≤ 0.25) |
Possible (0.26 - 0.50) |
Likely (0.51 - 0.75) |
Probable (0.76 - 1.00) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 - Critical | IR | |||
| 3 - Major | 🎯(TARGET) | RR | ||
| 2 - Moderate | ||||
| 1 - Minor |
Choosing What to Fix
The team identified a strategic control investment to further reduce likelihood: a Privileged Access Management (PAM) solution. Control standard referenced: NIST SP 800-53 Rev. 5, AC-6(10) under the Access Control (AC) family. The team then estimated its likely effect — before spending a dollar. The decision was framed around cost and projected risk reduction.
Privileged accounts are one of the highest-leverage attack vectors — and also one of the most commonly under-governed risks in enterprise environments.
| Proposed Control | Year 1 Cost | Annual Maintenance | Expected Effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|
| PAC004: PAM Solution (likelihood) | $95,000 | $20,000 | 0.225 |
The projected post-treatment estimated risk score of 0.885 — calculated from an impact of 3.83 and likelihood of 0.231 (0.456 - 0.225) — was well below appetite (0.936). Executives approved the investment not because it felt right, but because the numbers worked.
What the Math Revealed
When the project concluded, the results were undeniable. The PAM solution was later evaluated for actual effectiveness, which exceeded expectations at 0.234, reducing the residual risk likelihood to 0.222, while maintaining the impact at 3.83 resulting in a residual risk score of 0.85 .The team now had a clear picture of their risk posture, and the numbers to back it up. They could finally answer the questions they had struggled to answer for months: were they spending the right amount on risk? Could they defend their budget? Were their controls working?
This section quantifies the impact of both PAC004 and the full program — translating technical control performance into business-aligned metrics executives can trust.
Risk Efficiency Rate (PAC004)
| Metric | Value | Calculation |
|---|---|---|
| Appetite Threshold | 0.936 (goal) | 3.9 x 0.24 |
| Baseline Residual Risk Score (pre-PAC004) | 1.746 above appetite | 3.83 x 0.456 |
| Residual Risk Score (post-PAC004) | 0.85 goal exceeded | 3.83 x 0.222 |
| Risk Score Reduction (PAC004) | 51.31% | (1.746 - 0.85) / 1.746 x 100 |
| Risk Efficiency Rate |
Year 1: $1,852 per 1% Year 2+: $390 per 1% |
$95K / 51.31% risk reduction = $1,852 per 1% $20K / 51.31% = $390 per 1% |
| ROI |
Year 1: $95K spent for 51.31% reduction in risk Year 2+: $20K annual spend to maintain a 51.31% reduction in risk |
Total Investment Efficiency
| Metric | Value | Calculation |
|---|---|---|
| Inherent Risk Score | 3.60 above appetite | 4.0 x 0.90 |
| Final Residual Risk Score | 0.85 within appetite | 3.83 x 0.222 |
| Total Risk Score Reduction | 76.38% | (3.60 - 0.85) / 3.60 x 100 |
| Risk Efficiency Rate |
Year 1: $2,265 per 1% Year 2+: $1,283 per 1% |
$173K / 76.38% risk reduction = $2,265 per 1% $98K / 76.38% = $1,283 per 1% |
| ROI |
Year 1: $173K spent for 76.38% reduction in risk Year 2+: $98K annual spend to maintain a 76.38% reduction in risk |
With this data, the organization could finally monitor the cost of its posture — and adjust. They could rebalance control portfolios, tune their roadmap, and demonstrate cost-effective risk reduction to regulators and boards.
For the Board
Our core risk was unauthorized access to sensitive systems — a direct threat to customer data protection and brand trust. Before this investment, we were spending $78K annually and operating above the board-approved risk threshold.
A targeted $95K initiative — with $20K in ongoing maintenance — reduced residual risk by 51.31%, bringing us within the board-defined appetite. While our operating budget increased to $98K, our overall posture improved from a 51.5% reduction to 76.38%.
This investment increases protection of what matters most to the organization — our customers.
Governance Without Guessing
This wasn't a one-time project. It was the start of a new governance rhythm. One where performance is measured, controls are evaluated in context, and investments are reviewed through a consistent lens of effectiveness and alignment.
They didn't just pass audit. They proved value.
Caveats & Considerations
This example is illustrative — not predictive. It's a clean narrative meant to show the value of applying the full Fearlus Operating System, but like all models, it simplifies reality.
- It assumes an ideal IT implementation. In practice, projects face real challenges: personnel turnover, contracting delays, and integration setbacks.
- Labor costs tied to planning, coordination, and change management are often underrepresented and can materially affect ROI.
- This walkthrough focuses on clarity — but actual execution takes time, patience, and discipline.
- Many of the calculations shown are standard in established risk literature. What Fearlus adds is orchestration — a system that aligns them with strategic priorities and translates them into action.
- This scoring model is one possible configuration. Every organization and industry will have its own nuances. The Fearlus OS is designed to accommodate them.
- Scoring outputs are only as good as the inputs. If control data is outdated or assumed, results may appear precise but lack accuracy.
- Executives and Leaders must actively make and document strategic decisions. These decisions directly shape design efforts, guide team actions, and form the backbone of measurable governance—ensuring the system delivers full value through visible leadership and participation.
- Regulatory standards vary. While the effectiveness rate supports internal decision-making, it doesn't override formal legal or compliance interpretations.
- Controls that look effective in models can still fail in practice due to configuration issues, user error, or limited scope. Continuous validation is key.
- Some benefits—like cultural shift, improved audit readiness, and long-term ROI—emerge over time, not instantly. Fearlus is designed for sustained impact, not one-time wins.
While this walkthrough presents a high-level narrative, there is significantly more detail behind the math and modeling process than what is shown here. The Fearlus OS Playbook contains a comprehensive explanation of the calculations, control performance criteria, and scoring methods used throughout the Operating System.
Want to calculate your own Risk Efficiency Rate?
This is one walkthrough. The model behind it is broader, deeper, and designed for repeatability across your enterprise.
Explore the Operating System Talk to Our Team