How does automation affect total risk when monitoring an automated system for faults?

When considering how automation affects total risk in monitoring systems for faults, passive monitoring introduces certain vulnerabilities that can lead to an increase in total risk. In passive monitoring, the system is primarily set to observe and report conditions without actively intervening or managing problems as they arise. This lack of proactive engagement can result in delayed responses to faults, increasing the chance of undetected failures that may escalate into more significant issues.

Automation can streamline processes and reduce human error, but if monitoring remains passive, it does not adequately mitigate risks associated with potential faults. Failures can occur without immediate acknowledgment, and the absence of real-time analysis and intervention allows risks to compound. Therefore, relying solely on passive monitoring in an automated environment often results in a higher total risk, as potential faults may go unaddressed for longer periods, leading to greater consequences.

This understanding clarifies why the correct response indicates an increase in total risk with passive monitoring, emphasizing the importance of active engagement and oversight in automated systems to maintain lower overall risk levels.