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.

B would rebuild and refactor every application before the low-change migration cutover. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A large on-premises server fleet must move with minimal OS or application changes and short cutover downtime): application Migration Service supports rehosting with continuous replication rather than rebuilding each server manually. The required design is use AWS Application Migration Service for block-level replication and test launch waves; acceptance depends on evidence that test instances boot from replicated disks and cutover downtime meets the defined window.

C would copy VM disks once with no ongoing replication while applications continue changing data. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A large on-premises server fleet must move with minimal OS or application changes and short cutover downtime): application Migration Service supports rehosting with continuous replication rather than rebuilding each server manually. The required design is use AWS Application Migration Service for block-level replication and test launch waves; acceptance depends on evidence that test instances boot from replicated disks and cutover downtime meets the defined window.

D would launch all migrated instances in production without a test-wave or cutover rehearsal. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A large on-premises server fleet must move with minimal OS or application changes and short cutover downtime): application Migration Service supports rehosting with continuous replication rather than rebuilding each server manually. The required design is use AWS Application Migration Service for block-level replication and test launch waves; acceptance depends on evidence that test instances boot from replicated disks and cutover downtime meets the defined window.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: VMs are fully rewritten with broad code changes despite the low-change migration requirement. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that test instances boot from replicated disks and cutover downtime meets the defined window. The underlying design requirement is application Migration Service supports rehosting with continuous replication rather than rebuilding each server manually.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Test instances boot from a stale one-time disk copy and miss subsequent production writes. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that test instances boot from replicated disks and cutover downtime meets the defined window. The underlying design requirement is application Migration Service supports rehosting with continuous replication rather than rebuilding each server manually.

D reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The first cutover discovers an untested application dependency and exceeds the outage window. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that test instances boot from replicated disks and cutover downtime meets the defined window. The underlying design requirement is application Migration Service supports rehosting with continuous replication rather than rebuilding each server manually.

A would replicate rows into PostgreSQL before converting incompatible schema and stored procedures. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A 40 TB SQL database needs heterogeneous conversion to PostgreSQL with ongoing data updates until cutover): dMS Schema Conversion handles schema and code conversion; DMS data migration moves and replicates database rows. The required design is assess schema using DMS Schema Conversion and use AWS DMS for full load plus CDC after conversion; acceptance depends on evidence that converted schema passes tests and replication lag reaches an acceptable cutover level.

B would run schema assessment but omit CDC setup for active transaction changes until the switchover. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A 40 TB SQL database needs heterogeneous conversion to PostgreSQL with ongoing data updates until cutover): dMS Schema Conversion handles schema and code conversion; DMS data migration moves and replicates database rows. The required design is assess schema using DMS Schema Conversion and use AWS DMS for full load plus CDC after conversion; acceptance depends on evidence that converted schema passes tests and replication lag reaches an acceptable cutover level.

D would use AWS DMS full load only and ignore ongoing SQL changes before the final cutover. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A 40 TB SQL database needs heterogeneous conversion to PostgreSQL with ongoing data updates until cutover): dMS Schema Conversion handles schema and code conversion; DMS data migration moves and replicates database rows. The required design is assess schema using DMS Schema Conversion and use AWS DMS for full load plus CDC after conversion; acceptance depends on evidence that converted schema passes tests and replication lag reaches an acceptable cutover level.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: DMS full load completes, but changed records after its start are missing at cutover. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that converted schema passes tests and replication lag reaches an acceptable cutover level. The underlying design requirement is dMS Schema Conversion handles schema and code conversion; DMS data migration moves and replicates database rows.

B reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: CDC lag appears healthy while incompatible stored procedures still fail target acceptance tests. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that converted schema passes tests and replication lag reaches an acceptable cutover level. The underlying design requirement is dMS Schema Conversion handles schema and code conversion; DMS data migration moves and replicates database rows.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Schema conversion succeeds but target rows stop updating as source transactions continue. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that converted schema passes tests and replication lag reaches an acceptable cutover level. The underlying design requirement is dMS Schema Conversion handles schema and code conversion; DMS data migration moves and replicates database rows.

B would arrive at a Data Transfer Terminal site without reserved access or prepared encrypted storage devices. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (An Enterprise Support customer must migrate 500 TB from a remote site with only a 50 Mbps WAN and can transport encrypted storage devices to an AWS terminal location): snowball Edge is closed to new customers; Data Transfer Terminal supports bring-your-own-device offline-site data migration for eligible Enterprise Support customers. The required design is reserve an AWS Data Transfer Terminal session and bring properly prepared customer-owned storage devices for high-bandwidth upload; acceptance depends on evidence that the device uploads through the terminal into the intended AWS storage target and object manifests reconcile within the migration window.

C would order Snowball Edge devices as a new customer despite their unavailability. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (An Enterprise Support customer must migrate 500 TB from a remote site with only a 50 Mbps WAN and can transport encrypted storage devices to an AWS terminal location): snowball Edge is closed to new customers; Data Transfer Terminal supports bring-your-own-device offline-site data migration for eligible Enterprise Support customers. The required design is reserve an AWS Data Transfer Terminal session and bring properly prepared customer-owned storage devices for high-bandwidth upload; acceptance depends on evidence that the device uploads through the terminal into the intended AWS storage target and object manifests reconcile within the migration window.

D would send 500 TB over the 50-Mbps WAN without checking whether the transfer meets the migration window. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (An Enterprise Support customer must migrate 500 TB from a remote site with only a 50 Mbps WAN and can transport encrypted storage devices to an AWS terminal location): snowball Edge is closed to new customers; Data Transfer Terminal supports bring-your-own-device offline-site data migration for eligible Enterprise Support customers. The required design is reserve an AWS Data Transfer Terminal session and bring properly prepared customer-owned storage devices for high-bandwidth upload; acceptance depends on evidence that the device uploads through the terminal into the intended AWS storage target and object manifests reconcile within the migration window.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The Data Transfer Terminal session cannot start because prepared devices or reservation requirements are unmet. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the device uploads through the terminal into the intended AWS storage target and object manifests reconcile within the migration window. The underlying design requirement is snowball Edge is closed to new customers; Data Transfer Terminal supports bring-your-own-device offline-site data migration for eligible Enterprise Support customers.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A new AWS customer is unable to order a Snowball Edge device for the 500-TB import. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the device uploads through the terminal into the intended AWS storage target and object manifests reconcile within the migration window. The underlying design requirement is snowball Edge is closed to new customers; Data Transfer Terminal supports bring-your-own-device offline-site data migration for eligible Enterprise Support customers.

D reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The 50-Mbps WAN transfer estimate exceeds the available migration window by months. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that the device uploads through the terminal into the intended AWS storage target and object manifests reconcile within the migration window. The underlying design requirement is snowball Edge is closed to new customers; Data Transfer Terminal supports bring-your-own-device offline-site data migration for eligible Enterprise Support customers.

A would ship physical transfer devices repeatedly despite a sufficient, reliable private 10-Gbps link. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A datacenter has a reliable 10 Gbps private connection and needs recurring file transfers to Amazon S3): dataSync handles network-based repeatable transfers, while Data Transfer Terminal addresses selected offline-device migrations. The required design is deploy DataSync agents and tasks over the approved network with integrity verification; acceptance depends on evidence that scheduled transfers complete and reports show verified file/object copy counts.

B would copy file names only with a custom one-time script and omit recurring integrity verification. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A datacenter has a reliable 10 Gbps private connection and needs recurring file transfers to Amazon S3): dataSync handles network-based repeatable transfers, while Data Transfer Terminal addresses selected offline-device migrations. The required design is deploy DataSync agents and tasks over the approved network with integrity verification; acceptance depends on evidence that scheduled transfers complete and reports show verified file/object copy counts.

D would deploy DataSync agents without connectivity to the source or desired S3 destination and assume tasks succeed. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A datacenter has a reliable 10 Gbps private connection and needs recurring file transfers to Amazon S3): dataSync handles network-based repeatable transfers, while Data Transfer Terminal addresses selected offline-device migrations. The required design is deploy DataSync agents and tasks over the approved network with integrity verification; acceptance depends on evidence that scheduled transfers complete and reports show verified file/object copy counts.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Files reach an S3 bucket through an ad-hoc one-time copy, but subsequent scheduled runs fail. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that scheduled transfers complete and reports show verified file/object copy counts. The underlying design requirement is dataSync handles network-based repeatable transfers, while Data Transfer Terminal addresses selected offline-device migrations.

B reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: A physical transfer device is delivered despite reliable online transfer capacity being available. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that scheduled transfers complete and reports show verified file/object copy counts. The underlying design requirement is dataSync handles network-based repeatable transfers, while Data Transfer Terminal addresses selected offline-device migrations.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: DataSync tasks show no source connection or end-to-end integrity verification. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that scheduled transfers complete and reports show verified file/object copy counts. The underlying design requirement is dataSync handles network-based repeatable transfers, while Data Transfer Terminal addresses selected offline-device migrations.

B would enable DMS CDC without the MySQL source logging required for ongoing changes. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A staged migration of an active MySQL database requires continuous change replication until cutover): cDC minimizes write freeze; a one-time export becomes stale while applications continue writing. The required design is use AWS DMS change data capture with source logging configured and monitor replication latency; acceptance depends on evidence that target updates track source writes and final switch occurs after validation and lag reduction.

C would switch application writes to the target before validating target row consistency and replication lag. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A staged migration of an active MySQL database requires continuous change replication until cutover): cDC minimizes write freeze; a one-time export becomes stale while applications continue writing. The required design is use AWS DMS change data capture with source logging configured and monitor replication latency; acceptance depends on evidence that target updates track source writes and final switch occurs after validation and lag reduction.

D would run a one-time full-load copy and discard every source write after it begins. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A staged migration of an active MySQL database requires continuous change replication until cutover): cDC minimizes write freeze; a one-time export becomes stale while applications continue writing. The required design is use AWS DMS change data capture with source logging configured and monitor replication latency; acceptance depends on evidence that target updates track source writes and final switch occurs after validation and lag reduction.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: MySQL binlog/CDC prerequisites are missing and the replication task cannot stream changes. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that target updates track source writes and final switch occurs after validation and lag reduction. The underlying design requirement is cDC minimizes write freeze; a one-time export becomes stale while applications continue writing.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The cutover begins while monitored replication lag remains above the accepted limit. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that target updates track source writes and final switch occurs after validation and lag reduction. The underlying design requirement is cDC minimizes write freeze; a one-time export becomes stale while applications continue writing.

D reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: DMS full-load status is Complete but source updates after the load are absent in the target. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that target updates track source writes and final switch occurs after validation and lag reduction. The underlying design requirement is cDC minimizes write freeze; a one-time export becomes stale while applications continue writing.