Amazon AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional SAP-C02 Bundle

Backup-only DR cannot restart the platform quickly enough for the required minutes-long RTO. The stated evidence instead indicates: The destination bucket is present but replication cannot use the destination KMS key.

All containers share a single placement failure domain and cannot be rescheduled in time. The stated evidence instead indicates: The destination bucket is present but replication cannot use the destination KMS key.

Traffic bypasses inspection endpoints, so rules exist but are never reached. The stated evidence instead indicates: The destination bucket is present but replication cannot use the destination KMS key.

Only source-region S3 versioning is enabled, but no replication rule or role exists. The stated evidence instead indicates: Backup images exist but no continuously replicated recovery environment or launch plan is configured.

Overlapping network prefixes make ordinary VPC peering route selection ambiguous. The stated evidence instead indicates: Backup images exist but no continuously replicated recovery environment or launch plan is configured.

All service replicas were scheduled in one zone despite multi-AZ infrastructure. The stated evidence instead indicates: Backup images exist but no continuously replicated recovery environment or launch plan is configured.

Dormant storage versions and partial uploads accumulate without inventory or lifecycle governance. The stated evidence instead indicates: Teams purchase more RIs independently without measuring existing shared coverage.

Workload service calls repeatedly cross paid network boundaries without quantified need. The stated evidence instead indicates: Teams purchase more RIs independently without measuring existing shared coverage.

Metrics and logs are not organized into actionable per-service operational signals. The stated evidence instead indicates: Teams purchase more RIs independently without measuring existing shared coverage.

Passive regional copies exist without health-driven endpoint selection. The stated evidence instead indicates: In-place mass deployment removed rollback capacity before verifying the new version.

Resource-based trust was not evaluated beyond local IAM identity permission reports. The stated evidence instead indicates: In-place mass deployment removed rollback capacity before verifying the new version.

Snapshot creation is mistaken for proof the application can actually be restored. The stated evidence instead indicates: In-place mass deployment removed rollback capacity before verifying the new version.

The workload uses only on-demand capacity despite safe restart or checkpoint semantics. The stated evidence instead indicates: Traffic bypasses inspection endpoints, so rules exist but are never reached.

Static IAM user access keys were embedded in the external CI configuration. The stated evidence instead indicates: Traffic bypasses inspection endpoints, so rules exist but are never reached.

Raw CloudTrail logs were collected but no managed threat-detection findings were enabled. The stated evidence instead indicates: Traffic bypasses inspection endpoints, so rules exist but are never reached.

This action targets a different technical need: A brownfield workload must shift gradually from a legacy load balancer to a new service while preserving rollback. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. Weighted routing can support staged migration when health checks and client caching are considered; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.

This action targets a different technical need: A noncritical archive service has a 24-hour RTO and may restore its configuration and data from protected backups. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. Backup-and-restore DR suits longer RTO targets when restore execution is practiced; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.

This action targets a different technical need: A product catalog on DynamoDB receives many repeated eventually consistent key lookups and requires microsecond cache responses. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. DAX offers managed in-memory caching for eligible DynamoDB read workloads; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.

This action targets a different technical need: An application runs a small cron job on a permanently running EC2 server, which spends most time idle. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. Managed scheduling can invoke short-lived compute without operating a permanent cron host; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.

This action targets a different technical need: A personal-health-record system has strict regional data residency and encryption obligations before any cloud transfer. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. Regulatory and data-classification constraints affect target location and migration scope; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.

This action targets a different technical need: A legacy database must meet high transactional availability and can accept conversion to an Aurora-compatible engine. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. Aurora offers managed high availability features for supported relational engines; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.

A direct S3 SDK rewrite was imposed on workloads that cannot change their file interface. The stated evidence instead indicates: Developers assume SQS has identical JMS or broker feature semantics to the source stack.

Application reliability still depends on one unmanaged database host and manual restores. The stated evidence instead indicates: Developers assume SQS has identical JMS or broker feature semantics to the source stack.

Repeated uncached database work dominates response latency and compute expense. The stated evidence instead indicates: Developers assume SQS has identical JMS or broker feature semantics to the source stack.

This action targets a different technical need: Two Regions must retain independently encrypted object replicas to meet recovery requirements during a source Region failure. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. S3 encrypted object replication needs versioning and appropriate replication-role KMS authorization; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.

This action targets a different technical need: A Lambda-backed API team wants to expose only ten percent of traffic to a new function revision before promoting it. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. Lambda aliases support weighted traffic between published versions with monitored promotion; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.

This action targets a different technical need: A multinational website repeatedly serves cacheable large assets and incurs high origin data-transfer and request charges. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. Effective caching can reduce origin load and transfer cost for eligible content; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.

A simple online copy was selected without calculating network capacity and transfer duration. The stated evidence instead indicates: Licensing constraints were omitted until after destination EC2 instances were chosen.

Replicating table data alone does not translate incompatible source SQL constructs. The stated evidence instead indicates: Licensing constraints were omitted until after destination EC2 instances were chosen.

Migration scheduling ignored data classification and jurisdictional control requirements. The stated evidence instead indicates: Licensing constraints were omitted until after destination EC2 instances were chosen.

This action targets a different technical need: Critical backups must be scheduled consistently across many application accounts and retained by policy. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. Organization backup policies support common baseline definitions but still require functioning target configuration; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.

This action targets a different technical need: A service needs to replay historical event notifications after a downstream subscriber defect is corrected. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. EventBridge archives support bounded replay of previously captured events; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.

This action targets a different technical need: Compliance requires protected organization-wide API activity logs to flow into a centralized security account with controlled deletion. It does not replace either required solution in A or B. AWS Organizations trails centralize multi-account CloudTrail logging when storage access is secured; verify the two stated requirements independently rather than accepting an unrelated change.