Diagnostics — DQ13-035–051
DQ13-035 — C
Why C wins: Do implements the selected process/system fixes and preventive controls.
Why A/B/D lose: defining requirements is Plan; monitoring is Check; escalation without change is issue workflow, not Do.
Source: pp. 434–436.
Confusion pair: PDCA Do vs Check.
DQ13-036 — D
Why D wins: Check measures actual data against rules/thresholds to verify control and improvement effectiveness.
Why A/B/C lose: framework rewrite, unsafe patching, and first-time criticality selection are not Check.
Source: pp. 434–436.
Confusion pair: PDCA Check vs assessment.
DQ13-037 — A
Why A wins: Act responds to what monitoring reveals and sustains/restarts the cycle.
Why B/C/D lose: initial business case is earlier; one good run does not permanently fix a process; monitoring must continue.
Source: pp. 434–436.
Confusion pair: PDCA Act vs one-time closure.
DQ13-038 — B
Why B wins: changed regulatory requirements change the acceptance criteria, so rules/controls/measurements must be reassessed.
Why A/C/D lose: historical comparability cannot override current requirement; prior stability does not end DQ; Metadata alone is not enough.
Source: pp. 434–436.
Confusion pair: Continuous lifecycle vs fixed baseline.
DQ13-039 — C
Why C wins: management incentives omit quality priority/measurement/accountability: Lack of Oversight.
Why A/B/D lose: no processing/system design or correction-induced cause is described.
Source: pp. 436–438.
Confusion pair: Oversight vs entry error.
DQ13-040 — D
Why D wins: confusing UI, list design and weak edit checks are Data Entry Process causes.
Why A/B/C lose: general oversight can contribute, but the immediate cause is entry design; processing and previous-fix causes are absent.
Source: pp. 438–439.
Confusion pair: Entry-process cause vs processing cause.
DQ13-041 — A
Why A wins: upstream structural change without downstream awareness is a Data Processing Function cause.
Why B/C/D lose: no entry behavior, corrective patch, or criticality decision drives the failure.
Source: pp. 438–439.
Confusion pair: Processing cause vs entry cause.
DQ13-042 — B
Why B wins: disabled referential-integrity enforcement is a System Design control failure.
Why A/C/D lose: user entry is not the main clue; generic oversight is less specific; no previous correction created it.
Source: pp. 439–440.
Confusion pair: System-design control vs entry.
DQ13-043 — C
Why C wins: risky emergency correction creates new errors, matching “Fixing Previous Issues.”
Why A/B/D lose: not normal entry, criticality, or measurement.
Source: pp. 440–441.
Confusion pair: Correction-induced defect vs original cause.
DQ13-044 — D
Why D wins: formal sequence begins Framework → Define High Quality → Dimensions/Rules → Initial Assessment.
Why A/B/C lose: each reverses the management order or substitutes tools/cleanup for requirements.
Source: pp. 441–445.
Confusion pair: Formal activity sequence.
DQ13-045 — A
Why A wins: initial assessment requires actual data examination against rules/expectations and stakeholder confirmation.
Why B/C/D lose: opinions alone lack evidence; correction before assessment jumps ahead; vendor defaults cannot define business fitness.
Source: pp. 442–444.
Confusion pair: Assessment vs opinion/tool selection.
DQ13-046 — B
Why B wins: profiling gives a factual null rate; defect judgment requires an applicable rule/threshold.
Why A/C/D lose: nulls do not prove Accuracy failure, mandatory correction, or SLA breach without requirements.
Source: pp. 442–444, 452–454.
Confusion pair: Profiling fact vs DQ judgment.
DQ13-047 — C
Why C wins: prioritization combines business impact, criticality, risk and stakeholder evidence.
Why A/B/D lose: easiest fix, row count, or discovery order can all mis-rank value/risk.
Source: pp. 444–445.
Confusion pair: Impact-based prioritization vs defect count.
DQ13-048 — D
Why D wins: Chapter 13 allows quick hits but emphasizes strategic root-cause/preventive changes.
Why A/B/C lose: cleanup-only repeats symptoms; deferring all quick wins is unnecessary; purely technical goals miss business value.
Source: pp. 444–445.
Confusion pair: Quick hit vs strategic root cause.
DQ13-049 — A
Why A wins: the framework provides repeatable roles, methods, governance alignment, standards, measurement and extension of practice.
Why B/C/D lose: it is not one threshold, business-ownership replacement, or product specification.
Source: pp. 441–442.
Confusion pair: Framework vs tool/threshold.
DQ13-050 — B
Why B wins: mature practice captures/approves DQ rules during system development/change so requirements can drive design controls.
Why A/C/D lose: post-production reverse engineering and analyst-only spreadsheets are weaker; correction scripts treat symptoms.
Source: pp. 445–446.
Confusion pair: Upfront rule management vs reverse engineering only.
DQ13-051 — C
Why C wins: Measure and Monitor repeatedly calculates/report conformance to approved rules.
Why A/B/D lose: defining high quality and prioritizing are earlier activities; parsing is a transformation technique.
Source: pp. 446–447.
Confusion pair: Monitoring vs initial assessment.