what defines or dedicate the security controls / measures for assets?
The asset value
or the company policy?
For my understanding in the policy the countermeasures are defined for the asset value, so it is the policy. But in the preparation paper the asset value dedicates the controls.
How is your view?
There's a little bit of circularity here, but companies won't protect what they don't value. If they don't understand what an asset is worth, they won't apply protections which fit the asset.
For me, this is where governance comes into play. Policies should dictate that assets should have a value determined, and that risks to those assets are assessed. Leadership comes from the top down, which is why policy is so key here. Without policy, there's no direction. Without policy, there is no leadership. And if you want to define what a lack of leadership looks like, that's not having a strategy in place to protect (or make resilient) data.
If I read your question properly, I would answer this way.
As part of the Info Sec program, one should set up a Data Classification (DC) program.
That program, allows one to classify the data in terms of Availability, Integrity and Confidentiality, One must clear the DC program with management. Why? To ensure funding for tools, etc. Also, it assists management in understanding the value of their data. Data Classification may or may not be part of company policy.
However as @ericgeater has stated this could be circular in nature.
I suggest that you post the actual question such that folks can read it along with the options.
I just wanted to say, after reading your reply, that vegetable korma is the most wonderful dish on the planet. The world owes its creator an immeasurable debt.
Don't forget your pinch of mukhwas on your way out!