Diagnostic Answers RMD10-035–051
RMD10-035 — C
Why it wins: Enrichment supplements a record with additional trusted data to improve the master view.
- A: source-to-global translation is identifier/X-Ref management.
- B: nonmatches may be legitimate distinct entities.
- C: correct enrichment.
- D: taxonomy is an RDM structure.
Source: pp. 343–344.
Confusion: enrichment vs X-Ref/taxonomy.
RMD10-036 — D
Why it wins: Entity resolution determines whether multiple references represent the same real-world entity or different entities.
- A: choosing controlled values is RDM.
- B: architecture selection is separate.
- C: SLA governs service expectations.
- D: correct.
Source: pp. 343–345.
Confusion: entity resolution vs RDM/architecture.
RMD10-037 — A
Why it wins: Different customers incorrectly sharing one enterprise identity is a false positive.
- A: correct.
- B: false negative leaves one entity separate.
- C: not a code-domain issue.
- D: linkage is only successful if identity is actually the same.
Source: pp. 343–344.
Confusion: false positive vs false negative.
RMD10-038 — B
Why it wins: One real customer left under two enterprise identities is a false negative.
- A: false positive combines different entities.
- B: correct.
- C: Golden Record aims to reconcile identity, not preserve duplication.
- D: Reference crosswalk translates code sets.
Source: pp. 343–344.
Confusion: false negative vs false positive.
RMD10-039 — C
Why it wins: Fixed explicit parsing/scoring rules with repeatable outcomes are deterministic matching.
- A: probabilistic uses statistical likelihood.
- B: match-link is a reconciliation action, not matching method.
- C: correct.
- D: affiliation manages entity relationships.
Source: pp. 344–345.
Confusion: deterministic vs probabilistic.
RMD10-040 — D
Why it wins: Training on outcomes and adjusting statistical probabilities is probabilistic matching.
- A: deterministic relies on predefined rules.
- B: duplicate identification is a review workflow.
- C: standardization prepares inputs but is not the matcher.
- D: correct.
Source: pp. 344–345.
Confusion: probabilistic vs deterministic.
RMD10-041 — A
Why it wins: Candidate identification/matching finds records worth comparing before the final identity decision.
- A: correct.
- B: affiliation relates known entities.
- C: sharing happens after mastered results exist.
- D: RDM governance manages domains/values.
Source: pp. 343–345.
Confusion: candidate identification vs identity resolution.
RMD10-042 — B
Why it wins: Match decisions can be wrong; history enables unmerge/remerge, auditing, metrics, and rule improvement.
- A: matches should not become irrevocable merely because they occurred.
- B: correct.
- C: history supports rather than replaces stewardship.
- D: it does not change Master Data into Reference Data.
Source: pp. 345–346.
Confusion: match history/reversibility.
RMD10-043 — C
Why it wins: Duplicate identification flags candidates for steward review without automatically changing identity.
- A: merge is stronger than requested.
- B: link establishes identity relationship rather than just flagging.
- C: correct.
- D: Transaction Hub is architecture.
Source: pp. 345–346.
Confusion: duplicate identification vs link/merge.
RMD10-044 — D
Why it wins: Match-link establishes master identity while keeping source attributes intact and making reversal easier.
- A: merge reconciles/changes effective master content.
- B: duplicate identification does not create the requested identity relationship.
- C: Consolidated is architecture.
- D: correct.
Source: pp. 345–346.
Confusion: match-link vs match-merge.
RMD10-045 — A
Why it wins: Confirmed same-entity records plus a requirement for one reconciled profile calls for match-merge.
- A: correct.
- B: link preserves separate source content.
- C: duplicate identification stops at candidate review.
- D: Reference crosswalk maps code values, not entity attributes.
Source: pp. 345–346.
Confusion: match-merge vs match-link.
RMD10-046 — B
Why it wins: Merge needs survivorship/trust rules and can be costly to reverse after values/identities are reconciled.
- A: match-merge depends on business rules.
- B: correct.
- C: combining source records is its purpose.
- D: Global ID/identifier management remains necessary.
Source: pp. 345–346.
Confusion: match-merge complexity/survivorship.
RMD10-047 — C
Why it wins: Global ID is the MDM-assigned enterprise identifier for a reconciled entity instance.
- A: local original key is Source ID.
- B: country code is Reference Data.
- C: correct.
- D: DQ score is not identity.
Source: pp. 346–347.
Confusion: Global ID vs Source ID/reference code.
RMD10-048 — D
Why it wins: X-Ref maintains the relationship/history between Source IDs and the Global ID.
- A: surviving values are survivorship output.
- B: allowed values are RDM.
- C: SLA is provider-consumer service agreement.
- D: correct.
Source: pp. 346–347.
Confusion: X-Ref vs Global ID/survivorship.
RMD10-049 — A
Why it wins: One authorized Global-ID generator protects uniqueness and avoids competing enterprise identities.
- A: correct.
- B: source systems can retain local IDs.
- C: Global IDs identify Master entity instances, not Reference domains.
- D: Registry can use enterprise identity.
Source: pp. 346–347.
Confusion: Global ID uniqueness vs Source IDs.
RMD10-050 — B
Why it wins: Affiliation fits flexible typed real-world associations that may support different derived hierarchy views.
- A: affiliation exists because a relationship does exist.
- B: correct.
- C: flat Reference list is unrelated.
- D: Global ID assignment is identity management.
Source: pp. 346–347.
Confusion: affiliation vs parent-child.
RMD10-051 — C
Why it wins: Registry supplies enterprise identity/indexing with minimal source disruption while source systems retain Master Data.
- A: Transaction Hub centralizes updates.
- B: Consolidated stores a shared copy; the stem emphasizes index/minimal source change.
- C: correct.
- D: taxonomy is Reference classification.
Source: pp. 349–351.
Confusion: Registry vs other hub styles.