Which statement is true regarding facility security clearances?

The statement that invalidation is an interim measure for correction is true because invalidation typically serves as a temporary action that allows for the reassessment or reevaluation of a facility's security clearance status. This is often necessary when there are concerns regarding a facility's compliance with security protocols or when new information arises that necessitates further scrutiny.

The purpose of viewing invalidation as an interim measure is to allow organizations to address any issues without permanently revoking their security clearances, which can have significant operational consequences. It suggests that there is a process for remedying potential shortcomings, enabling a facility to demonstrate compliance before a lasting decision is made regarding its clearance status.

Options that imply invalidation is a permanent measure do not align with the intention of facility security clearances, as the goal is often to find resolutions rather than to penalize indefinitely. Furthermore, while it is important to report invalidations, the correct framework indicates that they are part of an ongoing process rather than something that requires immediate reporting as a standalone action. Lastly, invalidation does not depend solely on requests from contractors; it is a broader process defined by regulatory and security compliance requirements.