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.

A would validate only VM boot state after cutover, ignoring applications' directory authentication. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (An application team wants to move 200 VMs but some wave members depend on a shared LDAP directory): migration wave selection must preserve identity and network dependencies, not merely equal VM counts. The required design is create waves around discovered dependency groups and maintain reachable identity endpoints during transition; acceptance depends on evidence that authentication tests pass for every moved application at each migration step.

B would move LDAP-dependent VMs before provisioning reachable authentication paths. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (An application team wants to move 200 VMs but some wave members depend on a shared LDAP directory): migration wave selection must preserve identity and network dependencies, not merely equal VM counts. The required design is create waves around discovered dependency groups and maintain reachable identity endpoints during transition; acceptance depends on evidence that authentication tests pass for every moved application at each migration step.

D would group all 200 VMs into an arbitrary single migration wave without dependency grouping. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (An application team wants to move 200 VMs but some wave members depend on a shared LDAP directory): migration wave selection must preserve identity and network dependencies, not merely equal VM counts. The required design is create waves around discovered dependency groups and maintain reachable identity endpoints during transition; acceptance depends on evidence that authentication tests pass for every moved application at each migration step.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The shared LDAP service is left behind with no hybrid route for dependent migrated apps. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that authentication tests pass for every moved application at each migration step. The underlying design requirement is migration wave selection must preserve identity and network dependencies, not merely equal VM counts.

B reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: VMs launch in AWS but fail LDAP authentication because their shared directory is unreachable. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that authentication tests pass for every moved application at each migration step. The underlying design requirement is migration wave selection must preserve identity and network dependencies, not merely equal VM counts.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: An arbitrary wave is green on VM boot checks while application logins fail. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that authentication tests pass for every moved application at each migration step. The underlying design requirement is migration wave selection must preserve identity and network dependencies, not merely equal VM counts.

B would copy the file share into an incompatible object layout and break POSIX-style path expectations. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A batch application requires large nearline files after cutover and business needs consistent filenames and metadata): file migration must preserve the usable namespace and security semantics, not just object count. The required design is use DataSync to copy file shares to a compatible AWS storage target and validate permissions and metadata; acceptance depends on evidence that post-cutover jobs read the expected paths and access controls with matching manifests.

C would move files with a raw script that omits required metadata and access-control validation. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A batch application requires large nearline files after cutover and business needs consistent filenames and metadata): file migration must preserve the usable namespace and security semantics, not just object count. The required design is use DataSync to copy file shares to a compatible AWS storage target and validate permissions and metadata; acceptance depends on evidence that post-cutover jobs read the expected paths and access controls with matching manifests.

D would cut over the batch jobs before checking manifests and permissions on the target storage. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A batch application requires large nearline files after cutover and business needs consistent filenames and metadata): file migration must preserve the usable namespace and security semantics, not just object count. The required design is use DataSync to copy file shares to a compatible AWS storage target and validate permissions and metadata; acceptance depends on evidence that post-cutover jobs read the expected paths and access controls with matching manifests.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Copied objects exist but the batch application's original relative paths cannot be resolved. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that post-cutover jobs read the expected paths and access controls with matching manifests. The underlying design requirement is file migration must preserve the usable namespace and security semantics, not just object count.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: File sizes match, but application file permissions and metadata have changed. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that post-cutover jobs read the expected paths and access controls with matching manifests. The underlying design requirement is file migration must preserve the usable namespace and security semantics, not just object count.

D reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: DataSync task output indicates copy success while post-cutover jobs cannot read their required paths. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that post-cutover jobs read the expected paths and access controls with matching manifests. The underlying design requirement is file migration must preserve the usable namespace and security semantics, not just object count.

A would switch every client to AWS in one irreversible step without a rehearsed traffic rollback. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A legacy application must remain operational during a reversible cutover to AWS with limited DNS disruption): reversibility depends on data and traffic state; lowering a DNS TTL alone is not a rollback plan. The required design is rehearse traffic switching, data synchronization, DNS TTL, and a defined rollback path; acceptance depends on evidence that a test cutover and rollback return clients to the planned endpoints without data loss beyond RPO.

B would test the new deployment only while the source system is offline and unavailable for fallback. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A legacy application must remain operational during a reversible cutover to AWS with limited DNS disruption): reversibility depends on data and traffic state; lowering a DNS TTL alone is not a rollback plan. The required design is rehearse traffic switching, data synchronization, DNS TTL, and a defined rollback path; acceptance depends on evidence that a test cutover and rollback return clients to the planned endpoints without data loss beyond RPO.

D would lower DNS TTL at cutover but leave no reverse path or synchronized data for rollback. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A legacy application must remain operational during a reversible cutover to AWS with limited DNS disruption): reversibility depends on data and traffic state; lowering a DNS TTL alone is not a rollback plan. The required design is rehearse traffic switching, data synchronization, DNS TTL, and a defined rollback path; acceptance depends on evidence that a test cutover and rollback return clients to the planned endpoints without data loss beyond RPO.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Rollback DNS changes succeed but the source database is now stale relative to production. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that a test cutover and rollback return clients to the planned endpoints without data loss beyond RPO. The underlying design requirement is reversibility depends on data and traffic state; lowering a DNS TTL alone is not a rollback plan.

B reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The AWS application works briefly while the original production system cannot resume traffic. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that a test cutover and rollback return clients to the planned endpoints without data loss beyond RPO. The underlying design requirement is reversibility depends on data and traffic state; lowering a DNS TTL alone is not a rollback plan.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Clients still resolve the retired endpoint after a DNS cutover with no rollback plan. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that a test cutover and rollback return clients to the planned endpoints without data loss beyond RPO. The underlying design requirement is reversibility depends on data and traffic state; lowering a DNS TTL alone is not a rollback plan.

B would approve cutover solely from row counts, without procedure behavior and application tests. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (An enterprise moves from Oracle to Aurora PostgreSQL and stored procedures use vendor-specific syntax): heterogeneous database moves require schema and application compatibility work in addition to copying data. The required design is apply DMS Schema Conversion assessment and targeted application remediation before DMS data migration; acceptance depends on evidence that procedure test suites execute correctly on the target and row-level data validation passes.

C would transfer Oracle table rows to PostgreSQL without converting incompatible stored-procedure syntax. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (An enterprise moves from Oracle to Aurora PostgreSQL and stored procedures use vendor-specific syntax): heterogeneous database moves require schema and application compatibility work in addition to copying data. The required design is apply DMS Schema Conversion assessment and targeted application remediation before DMS data migration; acceptance depends on evidence that procedure test suites execute correctly on the target and row-level data validation passes.

D would assume every Oracle-specific SQL expression executes unchanged on Aurora PostgreSQL. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (An enterprise moves from Oracle to Aurora PostgreSQL and stored procedures use vendor-specific syntax): heterogeneous database moves require schema and application compatibility work in addition to copying data. The required design is apply DMS Schema Conversion assessment and targeted application remediation before DMS data migration; acceptance depends on evidence that procedure test suites execute correctly on the target and row-level data validation passes.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: DMS data import completes while vendor-specific application calls are still incompatible. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that procedure test suites execute correctly on the target and row-level data validation passes. The underlying design requirement is heterogeneous database moves require schema and application compatibility work in addition to copying data.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Target tables contain row counts matching Oracle while critical stored procedures fail execution. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that procedure test suites execute correctly on the target and row-level data validation passes. The underlying design requirement is heterogeneous database moves require schema and application compatibility work in addition to copying data.

D reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Converted SQL parses but produces different business results on test cases. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that procedure test suites execute correctly on the target and row-level data validation passes. The underlying design requirement is heterogeneous database moves require schema and application compatibility work in addition to copying data.

A would run all replication tasks at maximum speed during business hours, saturating the shared circuit. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A large migration may trigger temporary replication traffic that saturates a 1 Gbps shared corporate circuit): migration bandwidth must be planned around live traffic rather than assuming unlimited private connectivity. The required design is model migration throughput, throttle replication where supported, and schedule copy windows with reserved capacity; acceptance depends on evidence that production network latency stays within limits while the migration backlog decreases predictably.

B would plan data copy volume but omit recurring production-bandwidth reservations and throttles. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A large migration may trigger temporary replication traffic that saturates a 1 Gbps shared corporate circuit): migration bandwidth must be planned around live traffic rather than assuming unlimited private connectivity. The required design is model migration throughput, throttle replication where supported, and schedule copy windows with reserved capacity; acceptance depends on evidence that production network latency stays within limits while the migration backlog decreases predictably.

D would stop migration monitoring after startup even if the backlog or link utilization exceeds targets. This is not a defensible answer to the stated constraint (A large migration may trigger temporary replication traffic that saturates a 1 Gbps shared corporate circuit): migration bandwidth must be planned around live traffic rather than assuming unlimited private connectivity. The required design is model migration throughput, throttle replication where supported, and schedule copy windows with reserved capacity; acceptance depends on evidence that production network latency stays within limits while the migration backlog decreases predictably.

A reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: Replication task throughput saturates the 1-Gbps corporate link and user latency spikes. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that production network latency stays within limits while the migration backlog decreases predictably. The underlying design requirement is migration bandwidth must be planned around live traffic rather than assuming unlimited private connectivity.

B reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The initial backlog estimate looked acceptable but traffic controls are absent during the business window. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that production network latency stays within limits while the migration backlog decreases predictably. The underlying design requirement is migration bandwidth must be planned around live traffic rather than assuming unlimited private connectivity.

C reports an inadequate or failed acceptance condition: The migration backlog grows because unmonitored replication consumes shared capacity unpredictably. This result does not establish the specified outcome for the current architecture. The decisive test must demonstrate that production network latency stays within limits while the migration backlog decreases predictably. The underlying design requirement is migration bandwidth must be planned around live traffic rather than assuming unlimited private connectivity.