Diagnostic Answers RMD10-052–068
RMD10-052 — D
Why it wins: If the hub owns all Master Data updates and is authoritative for maintenance, it is a Transaction Hub/SOR.
- A: Registry leaves Master Data maintained in source SORs.
- B: Consolidated leaves writes in source systems.
- C: “System of Reference only” does not capture the hub’s write authority.
- D: correct.
Source: pp. 349–351.
Confusion: Transaction Hub vs Registry/Consolidated.
RMD10-053 — A
Why it wins: Source systems retain writes while consumers use one stored reconciled enterprise copy: Consolidated.
- A: correct.
- B: Registry points to source-held data rather than storing the shared integrated view.
- C: Transaction Hub would own updates.
- D: not Reference list problem.
Source: pp. 349–351.
Confusion: Consolidated vs Registry/Transaction Hub.
RMD10-054 — B
Why it wins: Consolidation limits source disruption but relies on replication/synchronization, creating latency trade-offs.
- A: central writes describe Transaction Hub.
- B: correct.
- C: Consolidated explicitly uses a central repository.
- D: semantic reconciliation is still required.
Source: pp. 349–351.
Confusion: Consolidated trade-off.
RMD10-055 — C
Why it wins: The activity sequence moves from source assessment to defining the architectural approach.
- A: governance matters but architecture is not skipped.
- B: publication follows architecture/model/stewardship work.
- C: correct.
- D: Source IDs should be preserved through X-Ref.
Source: pp. 351–353.
Confusion: MDM activity sequence.
RMD10-056 — D
Why it wins: RDM architecture must consider volatility, update frequency, historical versions, vendor/external delivery, consumption, stewardship updates, and approval/notification workflow.
- A: row count alone is insufficient.
- B: probabilistic entity matching is MDM, not RDM architecture.
- C: warehouse presence alone is insufficient.
- D: correct.
Source: pp. 353–355.
Confusion: RDM architecture vs MDM matching.
RMD10-057 — A
Why it wins: Steward/source/update schedule/consumers/history are management Metadata needed for Reference stewardship.
- A: correct.
- B: row count does not establish authority or lifecycle.
- C: Global ID mappings are MDM identity management.
- D: transaction volume is not enough.
Source: pp. 354–355.
Confusion: RDM stewardship Metadata.
RMD10-058 — B
Why it wins: MDM/RDM require specialized business and technical knowledge; prioritize business need and deliver incrementally under an enterprise architecture.
- A: enterprise architecture is explicitly important.
- B: correct.
- C: multiple Reference sets can be governed.
- D: governance is needed from the beginning.
Source: pp. 355–356.
Confusion: incremental implementation vs big bang.
RMD10-059 — C
Why it wins: Chapter 10 architecture choice considers organization, SOR landscape, governance, latency/access, and consumers/applications.
- A: brand/license is too narrow.
- B: steward count is only one operating consideration.
- C: correct factor set.
- D: Reference row count does not determine Master architecture.
Source: p. 356.
Confusion: architecture choice factors.
RMD10-060 — D
Why it wins: Movement monitoring reveals lineage, usage, ingestion/latency, transformation performance, and root-cause paths.
- A: lineage is a reason to monitor.
- B: monitoring supports DQ rather than eliminating it.
- C: monitoring does not determine hub style.
- D: correct.
Source: p. 356.
Confusion: data-movement monitoring.
RMD10-061 — A
Why it wins: The controlled Reference-change sequence is request → stakeholders → impact → decide/approve → update → communicate.
- A: correct.
- B: impact must precede update.
- C: skips impact/approval/history/communication.
- D: MDM entity-resolution flow, not RDM change.
Source: pp. 356–357.
Confusion: Reference change sequence.
RMD10-062 — B
Why it wins: A sharing agreement defines what can be shared, under what conditions, provider/consumer obligations, quality/service/security/privacy expectations, and accountability.
- A: it works under governance rather than replacing it.
- B: correct.
- C: technical mappings are only interface details.
- D: agreements set expectations, not guarantees of perfect upstream data.
Source: p. 357.
Confusion: sharing agreement vs interface specification.
RMD10-063 — C
Why it wins: Shared-data programs change local decision rights and habits; teams may resist relinquishing control even when enterprise consistency improves.
- A: Chapter 10 treats shared Reference/Master Data as enterprise resources.
- B: responsibility is distributed across governance/owners/stewards/technical roles.
- C: correct.
- D: the challenge described is organizational, not technical impossibility.
Source: p. 358.
Confusion: local control vs enterprise stewardship.
RMD10-064 — D
Why it wins: Governance decides integrated sources, DQ/conditions-of-use rules, monitoring, approval gates, and related enterprise policies.
- A: governance does not micromanage individual coding tasks.
- B: match history supports reversibility and should not simply be deleted.
- C: privacy/security obligations still apply.
- D: correct governance decision set.
Source: pp. 358–359.
Confusion: governance vs implementation.
RMD10-065 — A
Why it wins: Data change activity measures rate/type/source/lineage of changes and can provide evidence for algorithm/rule tuning.
- A: correct.
- B: steward coverage identifies accountability gaps.
- C: TCO measures cost.
- D: sharing usage measures adoption/throughput.
Source: p. 359.
Confusion: change activity vs other metric families.
RMD10-066 — B
Why it wins: Ingestion/consumption identifies provider systems and subscribing business areas and measures shared-data movement/use.
- A: DQ/compliance measures fitness and rule adherence.
- B: correct.
- C: steward coverage measures accountable ownership.
- D: TCO measures cost.
Source: p. 359.
Confusion: ingestion/consumption vs DQ/steward/TCO.
RMD10-067 — C
Why it wins: Steward coverage reveals domains/datasets without accountable stewards or groups.
- A: SLA measures service performance.
- B: change activity measures value-change behavior.
- C: correct.
- D: sharing volume measures usage.
Source: p. 359.
Confusion: steward coverage vs SLA/change/usage.
RMD10-068 — D
Why it wins: Balanced effectiveness evidence spans quality/compliance, change, ingestion/consumption, SLA, stewardship, cost, and sharing/adoption.
- A: raw record count is inventory only.
- B: rule count is design volume, not outcome.
- C: source count is context, not program value.
- D: correct balanced measurement set.
Source: p. 359.
Confusion: output counts vs balanced MDM/RDM metrics.