A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The warehouse is paused during the active business window and scheduled queries fail. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that billing and query telemetry confirm reduced idle compute spend with business-hour responsiveness. The underlying design requirement is paying for idle provisioned analytical capacity can be reduced when workloads tolerate pausing or serverless billing.

B reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A larger provisioned cluster sits idle while business-hour query performance remains unchanged. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that billing and query telemetry confirm reduced idle compute spend with business-hour responsiveness. The underlying design requirement is paying for idle provisioned analytical capacity can be reduced when workloads tolerate pausing or serverless billing.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Redshift compute billing continues during all nightly idle hours. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that billing and query telemetry confirm reduced idle compute spend with business-hour responsiveness. The underlying design requirement is paying for idle provisioned analytical capacity can be reduced when workloads tolerate pausing or serverless billing.

B would rely on the obsolete new-customer Migration Hub onboarding path instead of current AWS Transform discovery. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A 300-server VMware estate has undocumented interdependencies and business owners want safe migration waves): aWS Transform supports discovery and dependency-based wave planning for new migration projects; legacy Application Discovery Service no longer accepts new customers. The required design is use AWS Transform migration discovery and dependency mapping with application-owner workshops; acceptance depends on evidence that the migration inventory identifies application dependency groups and their approved move windows.

C would create migration waves based only on VM server names, without discovered application dependencies. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A 300-server VMware estate has undocumented interdependencies and business owners want safe migration waves): aWS Transform supports discovery and dependency-based wave planning for new migration projects; legacy Application Discovery Service no longer accepts new customers. The required design is use AWS Transform migration discovery and dependency mapping with application-owner workshops; acceptance depends on evidence that the migration inventory identifies application dependency groups and their approved move windows.

D would schedule all 300 VMs for a single cutover before interviewing application owners. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A 300-server VMware estate has undocumented interdependencies and business owners want safe migration waves): aWS Transform supports discovery and dependency-based wave planning for new migration projects; legacy Application Discovery Service no longer accepts new customers. The required design is use AWS Transform migration discovery and dependency mapping with application-owner workshops; acceptance depends on evidence that the migration inventory identifies application dependency groups and their approved move windows.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A new customer cannot start the old Migration Hub workflow used in the proposed discovery plan. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the migration inventory identifies application dependency groups and their approved move windows. The underlying design requirement is aWS Transform supports discovery and dependency-based wave planning for new migration projects; legacy Application Discovery Service no longer accepts new customers.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The migration wave list is alphabetical and does not represent actual VMware application dependencies. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the migration inventory identifies application dependency groups and their approved move windows. The underlying design requirement is aWS Transform supports discovery and dependency-based wave planning for new migration projects; legacy Application Discovery Service no longer accepts new customers.

D reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A single 300-server cutover breaks integrations the application owners were never asked about. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the migration inventory identifies application dependency groups and their approved move windows. The underlying design requirement is aWS Transform supports discovery and dependency-based wave planning for new migration projects; legacy Application Discovery Service no longer accepts new customers.

A would rehost the driver-dependent Windows application to standard EC2 before assessing unsupported hardware. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A licensed Windows application depends on unsupported hardware drivers and cannot readily run on standard EC2): not every workload can be rehosted; compatibility and business value govern the migration strategy. The required design is assess compatibility and choose retain, refactor, or an appropriate specialized migration approach instead of forced lift-and-shift; acceptance depends on evidence that the assessment identifies hard driver constraints and an approved treatment or deferral path.

B would assume a hypervisor change automatically makes specialized legacy drivers compatible. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A licensed Windows application depends on unsupported hardware drivers and cannot readily run on standard EC2): not every workload can be rehosted; compatibility and business value govern the migration strategy. The required design is assess compatibility and choose retain, refactor, or an appropriate specialized migration approach instead of forced lift-and-shift; acceptance depends on evidence that the assessment identifies hard driver constraints and an approved treatment or deferral path.

D would remove unsupported devices from the architecture without checking whether the application function survives. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A licensed Windows application depends on unsupported hardware drivers and cannot readily run on standard EC2): not every workload can be rehosted; compatibility and business value govern the migration strategy. The required design is assess compatibility and choose retain, refactor, or an appropriate specialized migration approach instead of forced lift-and-shift; acceptance depends on evidence that the assessment identifies hard driver constraints and an approved treatment or deferral path.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The restored Windows VM fails to initialize its required specialized hardware driver. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the assessment identifies hard driver constraints and an approved treatment or deferral path. The underlying design requirement is not every workload can be rehosted; compatibility and business value govern the migration strategy.

B reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: An EC2 instance launches but the driver-dependent business function cannot operate. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the assessment identifies hard driver constraints and an approved treatment or deferral path. The underlying design requirement is not every workload can be rehosted; compatibility and business value govern the migration strategy.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A driver is removed to force compatibility and the application fails its acceptance tests. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the assessment identifies hard driver constraints and an approved treatment or deferral path. The underlying design requirement is not every workload can be rehosted; compatibility and business value govern the migration strategy.

B would retire the on-premises application immediately without preserving dependent AWS integrations. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A legacy application must remain on-premises for regulatory reasons but other services can migrate): the 7 Rs assessment can recommend retaining workloads when constraints prevent immediate migration. The required design is classify it as retain and design supported hybrid interfaces for dependent AWS workloads; acceptance depends on evidence that migration scope excludes the retained workload while required hybrid connections pass contract tests.

C would treat it as fully migrated because its DNS name resolves, even though the application must remain on premises. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A legacy application must remain on-premises for regulatory reasons but other services can migrate): the 7 Rs assessment can recommend retaining workloads when constraints prevent immediate migration. The required design is classify it as retain and design supported hybrid interfaces for dependent AWS workloads; acceptance depends on evidence that migration scope excludes the retained workload while required hybrid connections pass contract tests.

D would include the regulated on-premises application in a forced lift-and-shift wave against residency policy. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A legacy application must remain on-premises for regulatory reasons but other services can migrate): the 7 Rs assessment can recommend retaining workloads when constraints prevent immediate migration. The required design is classify it as retain and design supported hybrid interfaces for dependent AWS workloads; acceptance depends on evidence that migration scope excludes the retained workload while required hybrid connections pass contract tests.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: AWS consumers cannot reach the retained application after its hybrid endpoint is removed. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that migration scope excludes the retained workload while required hybrid connections pass contract tests. The underlying design requirement is the 7 Rs assessment can recommend retaining workloads when constraints prevent immediate migration.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: DNS resolution works, but a workflow test fails because the on-premises system was mistakenly retired. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that migration scope excludes the retained workload while required hybrid connections pass contract tests. The underlying design requirement is the 7 Rs assessment can recommend retaining workloads when constraints prevent immediate migration.

D reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The regulated legacy system is running on AWS despite an explicit on-premises residency requirement. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that migration scope excludes the retained workload while required hybrid connections pass contract tests. The underlying design requirement is the 7 Rs assessment can recommend retaining workloads when constraints prevent immediate migration.

A would change the VM instance family but preserve duplicated operating costs and redundant business functions. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A portfolio review finds duplicate low-use applications that perform the same business function): retiring redundant systems often yields greater savings than faithfully reproducing all legacy machines. The required design is evaluate retirement or consolidation instead of migrating every instance; acceptance depends on evidence that owners approve retirement and downstream dependency tests remain successful.

B would lift-and-shift both duplicate low-use applications without analyzing retirement opportunities. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A portfolio review finds duplicate low-use applications that perform the same business function): retiring redundant systems often yields greater savings than faithfully reproducing all legacy machines. The required design is evaluate retirement or consolidation instead of migrating every instance; acceptance depends on evidence that owners approve retirement and downstream dependency tests remain successful.

D would delete both applications before business owners approve retirement and dependent systems are tested. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A portfolio review finds duplicate low-use applications that perform the same business function): retiring redundant systems often yields greater savings than faithfully reproducing all legacy machines. The required design is evaluate retirement or consolidation instead of migrating every instance; acceptance depends on evidence that owners approve retirement and downstream dependency tests remain successful.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Instance sizes fall while both redundant application functions and licenses remain active. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that owners approve retirement and downstream dependency tests remain successful. The underlying design requirement is retiring redundant systems often yields greater savings than faithfully reproducing all legacy machines.

B reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Both duplicate applications are hosted on EC2, and their redundant costs remain. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that owners approve retirement and downstream dependency tests remain successful. The underlying design requirement is retiring redundant systems often yields greater savings than faithfully reproducing all legacy machines.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Retirement is completed, but an unreviewed downstream consumer fails immediately. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that owners approve retirement and downstream dependency tests remain successful. The underlying design requirement is retiring redundant systems often yields greater savings than faithfully reproducing all legacy machines.

B would move Oracle directly to an arbitrary EC2 processor family without a software license review. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A high-throughput Oracle workload has database licenses that are tied to particular processor configurations): architecture recommendations must account for license restrictions as well as CPU and memory sizing. The required design is perform licensing and platform compatibility assessment before selecting EC2 or an AWS database option; acceptance depends on evidence that documented licensing costs and eligible configurations support an approved target choice.

C would assume bring-your-own-license terms are identical for every AWS database and EC2 deployment. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A high-throughput Oracle workload has database licenses that are tied to particular processor configurations): architecture recommendations must account for license restrictions as well as CPU and memory sizing. The required design is perform licensing and platform compatibility assessment before selecting EC2 or an AWS database option; acceptance depends on evidence that documented licensing costs and eligible configurations support an approved target choice.

D would select the lowest-priced instance based on CPU alone and ignore processor-bound licensing constraints. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A high-throughput Oracle workload has database licenses that are tied to particular processor configurations): architecture recommendations must account for license restrictions as well as CPU and memory sizing. The required design is perform licensing and platform compatibility assessment before selecting EC2 or an AWS database option; acceptance depends on evidence that documented licensing costs and eligible configurations support an approved target choice.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: An Oracle license review finds that the selected EC2 processor configuration is not authorized. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that documented licensing costs and eligible configurations support an approved target choice. The underlying design requirement is architecture recommendations must account for license restrictions as well as CPU and memory sizing.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A license audit rejects the target DB licensing assumptions made without assessment. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that documented licensing costs and eligible configurations support an approved target choice. The underlying design requirement is architecture recommendations must account for license restrictions as well as CPU and memory sizing.

D reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The chosen instance meets CPU throughput but total licensing charges exceed the budget. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that documented licensing costs and eligible configurations support an approved target choice. The underlying design requirement is architecture recommendations must account for license restrictions as well as CPU and memory sizing.