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.

A would schedule the reporting cutover during a job run without validating the downstream receiver. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A legacy reporting system has an hourly data export dependency that is missing from its CMDB): incomplete workload discovery can break business integrations despite a successful server launch. The required design is include network-flow and job-schedule dependency discovery before selecting a migration window; acceptance depends on evidence that the migration wave includes reporting consumers and validates the scheduled export after cutover.

B would copy the CMDB server entry without collecting actual flow or scheduled-task evidence. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A legacy reporting system has an hourly data export dependency that is missing from its CMDB): incomplete workload discovery can break business integrations despite a successful server launch. The required design is include network-flow and job-schedule dependency discovery before selecting a migration window; acceptance depends on evidence that the migration wave includes reporting consumers and validates the scheduled export after cutover.

D would migrate the reporting VM alone and ignore the missing hourly export consumer dependency. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A legacy reporting system has an hourly data export dependency that is missing from its CMDB): incomplete workload discovery can break business integrations despite a successful server launch. The required design is include network-flow and job-schedule dependency discovery before selecting a migration window; acceptance depends on evidence that the migration wave includes reporting consumers and validates the scheduled export after cutover.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A cutover during the export job produces missing report files downstream. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the migration wave includes reporting consumers and validates the scheduled export after cutover. The underlying design requirement is incomplete workload discovery can break business integrations despite a successful server launch.

B reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: CMDB inventory lists the host, but no network-flow or scheduled-export dependency is captured. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the migration wave includes reporting consumers and validates the scheduled export after cutover. The underlying design requirement is incomplete workload discovery can break business integrations despite a successful server launch.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The reporting server boots after migration, but its hourly export consumer receives no data. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the migration wave includes reporting consumers and validates the scheduled export after cutover. The underlying design requirement is incomplete workload discovery can break business integrations despite a successful server launch.

B would collect utilization numbers without analyzing application dependencies or business peaks. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A company needs to prioritize migration candidates using measured CPU, RAM, storage and network profiles): baseline discovery and performance profiles prevent overprovisioning or undersizing rehosted machines. The required design is collect time-series utilization and dependency data over representative business cycles; acceptance depends on evidence that the rightsized target design reflects peak periods rather than one quiet-day snapshot.

C would use one quiet-hour CPU snapshot as the sole basis for migration sizing. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A company needs to prioritize migration candidates using measured CPU, RAM, storage and network profiles): baseline discovery and performance profiles prevent overprovisioning or undersizing rehosted machines. The required design is collect time-series utilization and dependency data over representative business cycles; acceptance depends on evidence that the rightsized target design reflects peak periods rather than one quiet-day snapshot.

D would select destination instances from source VM labels, ignoring RAM and storage performance. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A company needs to prioritize migration candidates using measured CPU, RAM, storage and network profiles): baseline discovery and performance profiles prevent overprovisioning or undersizing rehosted machines. The required design is collect time-series utilization and dependency data over representative business cycles; acceptance depends on evidence that the rightsized target design reflects peak periods rather than one quiet-day snapshot.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A deployment plan ignores dependency maps and requires unavailable network services at cutover. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the rightsized target design reflects peak periods rather than one quiet-day snapshot. The underlying design requirement is baseline discovery and performance profiles prevent overprovisioning or undersizing rehosted machines.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A quiet-day CPU snapshot produces a target instance that fails during month-end peaks. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the rightsized target design reflects peak periods rather than one quiet-day snapshot. The underlying design requirement is baseline discovery and performance profiles prevent overprovisioning or undersizing rehosted machines.

D reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The selected VM memory is insufficient despite matching the source hostname profile. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the rightsized target design reflects peak periods rather than one quiet-day snapshot. The underlying design requirement is baseline discovery and performance profiles prevent overprovisioning or undersizing rehosted machines.

A would choose SaaS solely by subscription price without evaluating integrations, data rules or feature fit. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A business asks whether a monolithic application should be rehosted or replaced by SaaS): repurchase is a valid migration strategy when a managed SaaS replacement satisfies business requirements. The required design is assess total ownership, feature fit, integration needs, regulatory rules and organizational change cost; acceptance depends on evidence that stakeholders approve a documented rehost-versus-repurchase decision with migration impacts.

B would rehost the monolith without estimating operations, license and organizational change costs. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A business asks whether a monolithic application should be rehosted or replaced by SaaS): repurchase is a valid migration strategy when a managed SaaS replacement satisfies business requirements. The required design is assess total ownership, feature fit, integration needs, regulatory rules and organizational change cost; acceptance depends on evidence that stakeholders approve a documented rehost-versus-repurchase decision with migration impacts.

D would retire the current product immediately without confirming replacement data migration and feature parity. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A business asks whether a monolithic application should be rehosted or replaced by SaaS): repurchase is a valid migration strategy when a managed SaaS replacement satisfies business requirements. The required design is assess total ownership, feature fit, integration needs, regulatory rules and organizational change cost; acceptance depends on evidence that stakeholders approve a documented rehost-versus-repurchase decision with migration impacts.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The new SaaS product costs less per month but cannot support a required regulated integration. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that stakeholders approve a documented rehost-versus-repurchase decision with migration impacts. The underlying design requirement is repurchase is a valid migration strategy when a managed SaaS replacement satisfies business requirements.

B reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The rehosted monolith works but business operations and license overhead erase projected savings. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that stakeholders approve a documented rehost-versus-repurchase decision with migration impacts. The underlying design requirement is repurchase is a valid migration strategy when a managed SaaS replacement satisfies business requirements.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A replaced service goes live before its users and historical data are migrated. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that stakeholders approve a documented rehost-versus-repurchase decision with migration impacts. The underlying design requirement is repurchase is a valid migration strategy when a managed SaaS replacement satisfies business requirements.

B would treat every dataset as public, using a common permissive storage/access policy. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A regulated enterprise needs an inventory of datasets with residency and classification constraints before migration): data constraints determine viable targets before choosing transfer tools. The required design is catalog sensitivity, residency, encryption, and retention requirements per data set; acceptance depends on evidence that each migration wave has documented compliant destination Regions and access controls.

C would move regulated historical data without mapping retention, encryption and deletion requirements. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A regulated enterprise needs an inventory of datasets with residency and classification constraints before migration): data constraints determine viable targets before choosing transfer tools. The required design is catalog sensitivity, residency, encryption, and retention requirements per data set; acceptance depends on evidence that each migration wave has documented compliant destination Regions and access controls.

D would choose destination Regions before classifying datasets and residency obligations. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A regulated enterprise needs an inventory of datasets with residency and classification constraints before migration): data constraints determine viable targets before choosing transfer tools. The required design is catalog sensitivity, residency, encryption, and retention requirements per data set; acceptance depends on evidence that each migration wave has documented compliant destination Regions and access controls.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A storage bucket is publicly readable because sensitive records were incorrectly classified. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that each migration wave has documented compliant destination Regions and access controls. The underlying design requirement is data constraints determine viable targets before choosing transfer tools.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Data disappears before its statutory retention date because requirements were not cataloged. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that each migration wave has documented compliant destination Regions and access controls. The underlying design requirement is data constraints determine viable targets before choosing transfer tools.

D reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The destination Region violates the source dataset's residency obligation. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that each migration wave has documented compliant destination Regions and access controls. The underlying design requirement is data constraints determine viable targets before choosing transfer tools.

A would declare every wave ready on discovery completion without resolving mandatory dependency gates. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A company needs an executive view of hundreds of server migration decisions and unresolved blockers): aWS Transform is the recommended new-customer planning tool, while Migration Hub stopped accepting new customers in November 2025. The required design is track discovery, migration-wave status, blockers and readiness in AWS Transform with an accountable program register; acceptance depends on evidence that each application has an owner, dependency group, target approach, and verifiable readiness state.

B would publish a server count dashboard without owner assignments, blockers or wave readiness. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A company needs an executive view of hundreds of server migration decisions and unresolved blockers): aWS Transform is the recommended new-customer planning tool, while Migration Hub stopped accepting new customers in November 2025. The required design is track discovery, migration-wave status, blockers and readiness in AWS Transform with an accountable program register; acceptance depends on evidence that each application has an owner, dependency group, target approach, and verifiable readiness state.

D would track migration progress only through unsynchronized manual emails from technical teams. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A company needs an executive view of hundreds of server migration decisions and unresolved blockers): aWS Transform is the recommended new-customer planning tool, while Migration Hub stopped accepting new customers in November 2025. The required design is track discovery, migration-wave status, blockers and readiness in AWS Transform with an accountable program register; acceptance depends on evidence that each application has an owner, dependency group, target approach, and verifiable readiness state.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The status is Ready despite unresolved security signoff and connection testing. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that each application has an owner, dependency group, target approach, and verifiable readiness state. The underlying design requirement is aWS Transform is the recommended new-customer planning tool, while Migration Hub stopped accepting new customers in November 2025.

B reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The executive dashboard counts servers but does not identify wave blockers or owners. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that each application has an owner, dependency group, target approach, and verifiable readiness state. The underlying design requirement is aWS Transform is the recommended new-customer planning tool, while Migration Hub stopped accepting new customers in November 2025.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A manual report declares an application complete while its dependent service remains unmigrated. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that each application has an owner, dependency group, target approach, and verifiable readiness state. The underlying design requirement is aWS Transform is the recommended new-customer planning tool, while Migration Hub stopped accepting new customers in November 2025.