Pass Your Amazon AWS Certified Solutions Architect - Professional SAP-C02 Exam Easy!

Broad EC2 launch permission imposes no independent contract-aware constraint on the consumption of licenses. Discovering a violation on an invoice after a prohibited instance launches does not meet the preventive-control requirement.

A tag policy can standardize supported tag names and values, but it does not meter socket entitlements or apply licensing-specific hard limits. It is useful inventory hygiene, not a substitute for the License Manager counting rules.

A detective AWS Config rule may flag missing tags after resource creation, but it does not meter license sockets or block deployment by enforcing a self-managed license limit. License Manager counting and enforcement are needed for the stated preventive check.

Replatforming changes supporting technology while continuing the application; the scenario instead replaces the original CRM product with a different SaaS offering.

Copying old application data does not validate the services, integrations or contract of a new SaaS provider.

Rehost leaves the self-managed product in operation and misses the approved move to a replacement SaaS service.

Record retention can be satisfied through a separately validated archive and restore process without keeping an unused application online.

Retirement of the executable service does not cancel regulatory data retention requirements.

A server move does not create current business demand and would preserve avoidable operating cost.

Automated migration suggestions depend on discovered input and can identify uncertainty. They do not replace vendor licensing/support checks, application acceptance tests, or stakeholder decisions for high-impact workloads.

Low confidence indicates unresolved assumptions, not low migration complexity. Prioritizing those workloads without correcting the input creates a substantial preventable cutover and replatforming risk.

An operating system match does not prove that two applications have the same database compatibility or integration profile. The explicit low-confidence flags must be investigated rather than hidden by copying a peer recommendation.

The stated plan makes bounded platform changes rather than a complete redevelopment of the application.

Retain means keeping the workload in its existing environment rather than migrating the selected platform components.

Application retirement conflicts with the stated requirement to keep the service functioning.

Replatforming alone does not produce the extensive independently deployed service architecture that stakeholders approved.

Refactoring custom software does not inherently involve replacing it with a purchased software service.

Rehosting changes the infrastructure location rather than rearchitecting the monolith into independent components.

The dependency evidence shows the current connection timing cannot support those apps, so cutover sequencing needs revision or supported bridging.

More database CPU does not authorize blocked paths or remove measured WAN latency between applications and the new database.

Unrestricted exposure is unsafe and does not establish that the dependent applications tolerate the new latency.

Authentication statistics do not capture machine-to-machine use: the nightly accounting integration is a concrete live dependency. A silent interface shutdown could corrupt downstream reporting even if no employee opens the legacy application directly.

Keeping records satisfies only the retention portion of the retirement gate. The discovered downstream accounting call still depends on the endpoint; shutting it down without replacement or remediation would disrupt the dependent application.

Rehost is a separate migration strategy with its own ongoing maintenance costs; it could be appropriate if retirement cannot be justified, but blindly rehosting before evaluating the dependency and retention problem fails the stated decommission-safety question.

Rehost targets native compute rather than preserving and moving the existing VMware environment and tools as a unit.

Retain leaves the environment in place, whereas the proposed deployment moves its virtualization stack onto supported VMware infrastructure on AWS.

Refactoring fundamentally changes application implementation; it is not the stated near-unchanged migration of existing VMware workloads.

Contract execution establishes a commercial relationship, not application readiness. In particular it gives no evidence that authorization groups, data relationships and webhooks work after the traffic endpoint changes.

Employee display names are not the system-of-record customer history, and a new SaaS product cannot infer every missing workflow or audit trail. Without data reconciliation the migration may appear live while losing needed support information.

A valid administrator login proves only basic access to the SaaS tenant. It does not establish data correctness, user permissions, notifications, integration behavior or the required recovery plan when legacy access is removed.

Data movement and procedural code conversion are distinct concerns; moving table rows does not automatically translate incompatible stored procedures. The scenario explicitly identifies source-engine differences that must be assessed before asserting low risk.

Backup restorability protects data but does not make a heterogeneous database engine accept the previous engine's functions, triggers and procedural language. Runtime compatibility can still fail after the new database is populated.

A data migration can move rows while stored procedures and application SQL remain incompatible. DMS source-to-target data copying does not remove the need to assess and convert unsupported schema or database code objects.