When to Risk

People who know me well laugh at my approach to risk-taking. I'm probably the riskiest risk-adverse guy I know. On some things, I'm ready to charge the hill with a butter-knife. On others (which seem to be really similar situations), I tend to be way behind the curve. That makes me a frustrating team member for someone who tends toward one edge of the spectrum: I can be pretty unpredictable.

In reality, I'm pretty calculating when it comes to risk. Everyone runs a quick risk/reward assessment when deciding whether or not to move forward. The difference between a good risk and a bad risk isn't a risk/reward calculation; it's a risk/reward calculation about the right things.

Here is my grid (as far as I can understand it right now).

1. What am I really trying to accomplish? (Purposeless risk is cavalier foolishness)
2. Are there moral issues involved? (If staying "above reproach" is the risk, no reward is worth it)
   
3. Is there a safer way that will achieve the same result? (Risk just for kicks is not in my play book. I played slot machines once and they took all my money. Lesson learned.)
4. Who will bear the consequences? (I am much more likely to favor risk-taking where the risk is only to me or my reputation as opposed to a risk that could affect, say, my entire church's reputation)
5. Can I/we execute this? (A poorly executed risk is a good way to look stupid and waste a great opportunity)
6. Does this fit "us?" (Organ transplants are always risky, but if the organ is not a "match" they are always deadly. If a risk doesn't "match" the DNA of the organization or person shouldering the risk, it will kill you or the organization)

I may be missing a thing or two. Anything you could add?