Last-Minute CISM Prep
A last-week execution plan: stop consuming new material, train judgment with questions, and answer like a security manager under time pressure.
December 28, 2025 | Parul Sharma
In the final five days, my preparation narrowed down to only questions. No new videos, no new reading, no new material.
ISACA’s QAE, which contains roughly 1,200 questions, became my primary focus. By this stage, I had gone through most of these questions multiple times—probably three to four passes in total.
Yes, some answers were starting to stay in memory. But instead of blindly selecting them, I forced myself to think differently. I asked myself: if this question was not labeled under this domain or chapter, would I still arrive at the same answer? If the answer changed based on context labeling, I knew my thinking was still weak.
One thing that helped significantly was using the jumbled question mode in QAE. When questions are attempted chapter-wise, it becomes easy to let the chapter title influence your decision.
By switching to jumbled mode, I removed that crutch. I no longer knew whether a question belonged to governance, risk, or program management. I had to interpret the question purely on its intent.
This exposed weak reasoning very quickly, especially in governance-related scenarios where multiple answers often seem equally valid.
Over time, I started noticing patterns. For example, in governance questions, organizational culture might seem like the right starting point—unless the question clearly introduces business impact, in which case BIA should take precedence.
There is no single rule that works everywhere. The exam expects you to read the situation, identify what truly matters in that context, and then decide. That is why ISACA provides justifications—so that you can understand the thinking behind the preferred option.
This is something everyone talks about, but very few people actually practice properly.
Elimination became my default approach. Not elimination as in “this option is wrong,” but elimination as in this option is unnecessary.
Sometimes the thinking looked like this: if option B already achieves the outcome, why would I also do option A? If option D implicitly includes A, B, and C, why would I select them separately?
In other cases, it was about sequencing. For example, root cause analysis appears in multiple places—during eradication and post-incident review. But the first place it belongs is eradication. If eradication is an option, post-incident review automatically becomes a later step and therefore incorrect.
If you don’t train this kind of elimination, the exam will overwhelm you.
Another major shift was learning to resist technical reflexes. Options like “enable MFA,” “check SIEM logs,” or “reconfigure the firewall” are attractive because they feel decisive.
CISM rarely rewards that instinct.
A managerial decision is usually preceded by analysis. Maybe the organization isn’t ready for MFA. Maybe the technology doesn’t support it. Maybe the issue is procedural, not technical.
I often reminded myself to think vague before thinking specific. For example, if unusual traffic is observed, the first step is not digging into logs. The first step is observing patterns, comparing against historical baselines, understanding source and impact. That broader, vaguer answer is usually the correct starting point.
People often say “don’t pick technical answers,” but that advice is incomplete. Everything in security is technical at some level.
What matters is starting point. Managers start with observation, impact analysis, and root cause—not with controls. RCA and analysis are almost always safer first steps than direct action.
Once I internalized that, many confusing questions became manageable.
By the end, my QAE scores were sometimes very high, even touching the 90s. But I didn’t trust those numbers. Familiarity inflates scores.
On CertPreps, my scores stayed around 75–80%, which felt more realistic. Their questions are vague, which is closer to how the exam feels.
I also tried a few other mock tests from random providers. Some were fine, some were not. I do not recommend TestKing—the language felt too far removed from ISACA’s style.
One additional thing I did during this phase was use AI as a clarification tool. Whenever I felt confused, I asked very specific questions: exact steps of incident management, differences between BCP and DRP, when DRP actually starts, what systemic risk means versus inherent risk, and so on.
The goal was not to memorize definitions, but to remove ambiguity. I also bookmarked questions I kept getting wrong and wrote short notes about why my thinking was incorrect.
That reflection mattered more than repeating questions endlessly.
By the end of this phase, the preparation was no longer about content. It was about judgment, elimination, and confidence in decision-making. That is where I stopped preparing and started trusting the process.