Split a scenario into multiple simpler scenarios when assets are distinct.

Let’s talk risk modeling in plain English. You’re building a scenario to understand what could go wrong. And you’re asking: should I keep everything in one big story, or split it into smaller, bite-sized stories? In FAIR-style thinking, the answer often hinges on one key clue: there are multiple distinct assets involved.

Why assets drive the decision

In information risk work, an asset isn’t just a thing in a vault. It’s something of value to the organization—data, systems, processes, or even a brand. Each asset has its own flavor:

• Value: How much would the organization lose if this asset were compromised?

• Vulnerabilities: Where is this asset exposed? What weaknesses could attackers exploit?

• Threats: Who or what might threaten this asset, and in what ways?

• Impacts and recovery: How would impacts look for this asset, and how hard would it be to recover?

When you’re dealing with multiple assets, you’ll often find that these factors differ from asset to asset. Customer data might carry heavy regulatory pressure and high privacy impact, while intellectual property could pose a different kind of loss, even if both live in the same network. Financial records might react to completely different threat patterns and response times. If you lump all of these together into a single scenario, you risk smoothing over those important differences. That smoothing can hide the real weak spots and give you a one-size-fits-all set of controls that isn’t as effective.

Think of it like cooking. If you throw three very different ingredients into one pot and pretend they’re the same dish, you’ll end up with something bland or uneven. Splitting the scenario by asset lets you season each one properly, so the risk assessment reads true to each asset’s life in your organization.

A practical example you can hang on to

Let’s imagine a mid-sized company with three clear asset groups: customer data (PII and payment info), proprietary software code (intellectual property), and financial records (general ledger, payroll). Each group sits in a different corner of the risk landscape.

• Customer data: High privacy risk, strong regulatory visibility, customer trust on the line. Threats might include data exfiltration or improper access; impacts could be fines, brand damage, and lost customers.

• Intellectual property: Loss here touches competitive advantage and future revenue. Threats may be insider risk or targeted IP theft; impacts include lost pipeline and reduced market position.

• Financial records: Financial integrity and compliance drive this asset. Threats could be fraudulent activity or unauthorized access to payroll data; impacts involve regulatory penalties, financial misstatements, and cash-flow disruption.

If you treat these three assets as one single scenario, you’ll probably end up with a blended risk score that blurs the hot spots. You might miss a need for rock-solid access controls around the code repository, or you might underestimate the regulatory penalties for the data domain. When you model each asset separately, you get a sharper picture: different threats matter more for one asset, while others require different controls and response priorities.

The flip side: when a split isn’t worth it

Of course, splitting isn’t free. There’s overhead in defining, validating, and maintaining multiple scenarios. If all assets share the same threat landscape, have very similar value at stake, and require the same protection measures, you can justify grouping them. The key is to look for genuine differences in value, vulnerability, and impact. If those differences are minimal, a single, broader scenario may be sufficient and more efficient.

In practice, the decision often comes down to risk granularity versus management overhead. If your organization has a clear asset inventory and you can map risks cleanly to each asset, the argument for splitting gets stronger. If asset boundaries are fuzzy or the controls overlap heavily, a cautious, slightly coarser approach can be reasonable—but you’ll want explicit justification.

How to apply this mindset in FAIR

If you’re applying the FAIR framework, here are some pointers to keep the idea grounded:

• Start with asset identification. List each asset that has value to the organization. For every asset, jot down what its loss looks like—financially, reputationally, operationally.

• Define asset-specific contexts. For each asset, note its owner, location, data classifications, and what protections are already in place. This helps you see where differences matter.

• Model threats and vulnerabilities per asset. Distinct assets will often attract different threat patterns and vulnerabilities. Capture those differences rather than forcing a single threat profile on all assets.

• Assess impacts separately. The magnitude and type of impact can vary a lot between assets. Separate impact assessments let you tailor risk treatment for each one.

• Combine thoughtfully. After you’ve built asset-specific scenarios, you can aggregate results to see the big picture. The key is to keep the asset-level distinctions visible so you don’t lose the nuance in the tallies.

A few practical tips to keep the flow smooth

• Inventory first, then group. Before you model, list every asset and its value. If you’re unsure whether two items are distinct enough to warrant separate scenarios, ask: would a separate analysis change the controls or the priorities for reducing risk?

• Use simple language. In FAIR work, you’re trying to communicate risk clearly. Label each scenario with a plain name like “Customer Data Risk” or “IP Risk,” not some abstract code.

• Balance depth with digestibility. You don’t need to go overboard with dozens of tiny scenarios. A handful of well-defined asset-based scenarios often gives the most practical insights.

• Tie back to controls. For each asset, link intended mitigations to the risk findings. This makes the split meaningful and actionable.

A few missteps to avoid

• Don’t over-split just for the sake of granularity. If you end up with a million tiny scenarios, you’ll drown in work and lose sight of the big picture.

• Don’t mix too many assets that barely differ. If assets share the same value and risk posture almost everywhere, a grouped scenario could be more efficient.

• Don’t ignore cross-asset effects. Sometimes, a single incident can cascade from one asset to another. In those cases, you’ll still want to keep the assets distinct but include the interaction in your modeling.

A friendly way to remember

Here’s a simple rule of thumb you can carry with you: split when the assets aren’t twins. If they have different values, different weaknesses, and different potential damages, giving each its own scenario makes the risk picture clearer and more useful.

Connecting the dots with real-world sensibilities

Risk work isn’t just a spreadsheet exercise. It’s about understanding what matters most to the business, and then prioritizing actions that actually reduce risk where it hurts most. Splitting scenarios by asset helps you stay grounded in what’s truly at stake. It’s a way to avoid pleasing the numbers while neglecting the people and processes behind them.

If you’ve ever sat through a meeting where a single “everything” scenario was used to defend a broad, vague mitigation plan, you know the value of clarity. When you separate assets into their own stories, you can tell better stories to stakeholders. You can show where a particular control will help a specific asset, why that asset matters, and what a realistic recovery looks like.

Bringing it all together

In the end, the right moment to split a scenario into multiple simpler ones is when you’re dealing with multiple distinct assets. Each asset carries its own flavor of risk, and that flavor matters. By giving each asset its own scenario, you sharpen the focus of your risk assessment, improve the relevance of your mitigations, and help the organization allocate resources where they’ll do the most good.

If you’re just starting to map out assets and their risks, you might try this gentle exercise: list your assets, state the value at stake for each, note the primary threats and vulnerabilities for that asset, and outline the expected impact. See where differences pop up. Those are your cue moments to consider separate scenarios.

A closing thought

Risk work rewards clarity. When you honor the unique story of each asset, you don’t just produce better numbers—you create better strategies. And in the end, that’s what helps protect what matters most: the people, the data, and the capabilities that keep the lights on and trust intact. So the next time you’re building a scenario, ask yourself: are we talking about one big asset, or several distinct ones that deserve their own chapters? If the latter, that’s your signal to set up separate, asset-focused scenarios—and then let the insights lead you to smarter defenses.