Diagnostic Answers — DM5-061–072
DM5-061 — A
Why: forward engineering moves requirements → CDM → LDM → PDM, progressively adding implementation detail.
Distractors: B is reverse; C/D are out of order.
Source: current answer key pp. 168–174. Confusion: forward vs reverse engineering.
DM5-062 — B
Why: reverse engineering begins with existing implementation and works upward through PDM/LDM toward conceptual understanding.
Distractors: A is forward; C/D omit or scramble the recovery logic.
Source: pp. 174–176. Confusion: forward vs reverse engineering.
DM5-063 — C
Why: surrogate may become physical PK, but original business/natural uniqueness must remain enforced as alternate key/equivalent constraint.
Distractors: A/D would permit invalid duplicates; B is unrelated.
Source: pp. 172–174. Confusion: surrogate key vs preserved business uniqueness.
DM5-064 — D
Why: model review assesses correctness, completeness, consistency.
Distractors: A resembles PRISM dimensions; B is definition-quality trio; C is project management.
Source: pp. 176–178. Confusion: review qualities vs definition qualities.
DM5-065 — A
Why: maintained models stay synchronized with implemented change, often using reverse engineering/reconciliation.
Distractors: freeze/discard/diagram-only approaches make the model stale.
Source: pp. 177–178. Confusion: review vs maintenance.
DM5-066 — B
Why: current Chapter 5 explicitly includes modeling tools, lineage, profiling, Metadata repositories, patterns, industry models.
Distractors: A/C/D are partial or unrelated tool sets.
Source: pp. 178–181. Confusion: modeling tools vs general IT tools.
DM5-067 — C
Why: logical naming favors business-readable full terms; physical names may adapt to DBMS constraints using approved abbreviations/underscores.
Distractors: cryptic/environment names undermine meaning; character-for-character identity is not required.
Source: pp. 181–183. Confusion: logical vs physical naming.
DM5-068 — D
Why: PRISM = Performance/ease of use, Reusability, Integrity, Security, Maintainability.
Distractors: A/B/C are plausible-sounding but not the source mnemonic.
Source: pp. 183–184. Confusion: PRISM dimensions.
DM5-069 — A
Why: failed review triggers rework; unresolved final design decision belongs to the owner of the represented system under the current source logic.
Distractors: meeting does not guarantee approval; tool does not own the decision; rejected alternatives should not vanish without record.
Source: pp. 184–187. Confusion: review facilitation vs decision authority.
DM5-070 — B
Why: change control records rationale, content, timing, responsible parties and scope/location: Why, What/How, When, Who/Where.
Distractors: other choices omit essential change context.
Source: pp. 186–188. Confusion: version control vs design review.
DM5-071 — C
Why: Capture requirements and Completeness are 15 points each; Structural soundness is also 15.
Distractors: naming/readability/enterprise consistency are only 5 each; definitions and Metadata-data match are 10.
Source: pp. 188–190 as recorded in current answer key. Confusion: Scorecard weights.
DM5-072 — D
Why: missing business requirements hit capture/completeness; stale model Metadata vs actual DB hits Metadata-data agreement.
Distractors: visual polish, generic structures, and PRISM dimensions do not directly address the stated failures.
Source: pp. 188–190 as recorded in current answer key. Confusion: Scorecard content vs visual quality.