Diagnostic Answers RMD10-018–034
RMD10-018 — B
Why it wins: Stewards/consumers need the originating authority and maintenance/update context to govern a Reference set correctly.
- A: Global IDs are Master identifier management.
- B: correct.
- C: clear definitions remain necessary.
- D: Reference Data still changes.
Source: pp. 334, 338.
Confusion: Reference source Metadata.
RMD10-019 — C
Why it wins: A structural/granularity change can alter reports and code, so impact analysis and governed Reference change precede implementation.
- A: external authority does not eliminate enterprise impact governance.
- B: false positive is entity matching.
- C: correct.
- D: unmanaged local set worsens inconsistency.
Source: pp. 356–357.
Confusion: structural Reference change vs entity resolution.
RMD10-020 — D
Why it wins: Structural change to an external Reference set is a Reference change type.
- A: Master entity-match error.
- B: Master identifier/history operation.
- C: transaction operation.
- D: correct RDM change.
Source: pp. 356–357.
Confusion: Reference changes vs MDM/transaction changes.
RMD10-021 — A
Why it wins: System of Record is authoritative for creation/capture/maintenance.
- A: correct.
- B: authoritative consumer access.
- C: governed best-available source/view.
- D: architecture/index pattern.
Source: pp. 339–340.
Confusion: SOR vs System of Reference.
RMD10-022 — B
Why it wins: CRM remains create authority, while the hub can be the governed shared access point.
- A: the stem leaves SOR authority in CRM.
- B: correct System of Reference.
- C: hub publishes Master Data, not events.
- D: not classification hierarchy.
Source: pp. 339–340.
Confusion: SOR vs System of Reference.
RMD10-023 — C
Why it wins: Trusted Source communicates governed best-available data without implying perfect completeness/accuracy.
- A: Golden Record is still usable terminology.
- B: original source is closer to SOR concept.
- C: correct.
- D: discussion applies to Master reconciliation.
Source: pp. 339–340.
Confusion: Trusted Source vs Golden Record.
RMD10-024 — D
Why it wins: A best reconciled entity record can be Golden within a Trusted Source even with unknown attributes; “golden” is not perfect truth.
- A: Master Data may contain gaps.
- B: architecture need not replace every SOR.
- C: shared entity data remains Master.
- D: correct.
Source: pp. 339–340.
Confusion: Golden Record vs perfect truth.
RMD10-025 — A
Why it wins: Party is a common Master Data domain.
- A: correct.
- B: transaction.
- C: technical Metadata.
- D: Reference Data.
Source: pp. 338, 347–349.
Confusion: Master domains vs other data types.
RMD10-026 — B
Why it wins: Chart of accounts and cost centers are Financial Master context reused by transactions.
- A: Party covers persons/organizations.
- B: correct.
- C: Location covers facilities/addresses.
- D: financial structures contextualize transactions rather than being events.
Source: pp. 347–348.
Confusion: Financial Master vs Transaction Data.
RMD10-027 — C
Why it wins: Specific addresses/facilities/GPS locations are Location Master Data.
- A: Product domain.
- B: Legal domain.
- C: correct.
- D: geographic codes can be Reference Data, but specific enterprise locations are Master entities.
Source: pp. 348–349.
Confusion: Location Master vs geographic Reference Data.
RMD10-028 — D
Why it wins: MDM requirements start with repeated entities, creation/storage/change/access, quality/reliability, authority, and sharing—not vendor selection.
- A: tool-first.
- B: dashboard count does not define Master requirements.
- C: source retirement is a later architecture/roadmap question.
- D: correct assessment question.
Source: pp. 340–341.
Confusion: requirements vs tool-first approach.
RMD10-029 — A
Why it wins: Source landscapes, semantics, DQ, identifiers, and governance are complex; a manageable domain/attribute scope enables controlled learning and value.
- A: correct.
- B: programs can expand domains.
- C: RDM need not always finish first.
- D: transaction/source systems often participate.
Source: pp. 340–341.
Confusion: incremental MDM vs big-bang scope.
RMD10-030 — B
Why it wins: The source sequence begins with Data Model Management.
- A: Entity Resolution occurs after acquisition/preparation.
- B: correct.
- C: Sharing/Stewardship is last.
- D: Acquisition follows modeling.
Source: pp. 341–342.
Confusion: MDM processing sequence.
RMD10-031 — C
Why it wins: Model → Acquire → Validate/Standardize/Enrich → Resolve Identity → Share/Steward is the five-step spine.
- A: wrong order.
- B: resolution cannot precede source acquisition/preparation and sequence is incomplete.
- C: correct.
- D: resolution before acquisition/standardization is wrong.
Source: pp. 341–342.
Confusion: MDM processing sequence.
RMD10-032 — D
Why it wins: Data Model Management establishes enterprise entity/attribute meaning and granularity beyond source “system speak.”
- A: Global IDs follow identity work.
- B: model does not replace governance.
- C: not transaction retention.
- D: correct.
Source: pp. 342–343.
Confusion: Data Model Management vs ID/governance.
RMD10-033 — A
Why it wins: Data Acquisition brings candidate source records into MDM.
- A: correct.
- B: defines semantics.
- C: decides identity later.
- D: maintains relationships among mastered entities.
Source: pp. 342–343.
Confusion: acquisition vs modeling/resolution.
RMD10-034 — B
Why it wins: Normalize phone representation before relying on matching evidence.
- A: premature ID assignment risks bad matches.
- B: correct standardization.
- C: phone attribute remains Master content; it is not made Reference Data by formatting inconsistency.
- D: architecture does not clean input values.
Source: pp. 343–344.
Confusion: standardization vs identifier assignment/matcher tuning.