Diagnostics — DQ13-052–068
DQ13-052 — D
Why D wins: incident workflow requires accountable assignment/ownership for progress.
Why A/B/C lose: profiling detects, enrichment adds data, standardization transforms; none assigns the case.
Source: pp. 447–449.
Confusion pair: Issue ownership vs detection.
DQ13-053 — A
Why A wins: escalation is triggered by impact, urgency, duration, risk or inability to resolve at the current level.
Why B/C/D lose: it is not automatic for every exception, not post-resolution only, and not prohibited for Stewards.
Source: pp. 447–449.
Confusion pair: Escalation vs routine assignment.
DQ13-054 — B
Why B wins: tracing lineage upstream to the causal calculation is diagnosis/root-cause analysis.
Why A/C/D lose: scorecard reporting describes status, enrichment adds context, SLA negotiation sets commitments.
Source: pp. 447–449, 457–459.
Confusion pair: Diagnosis vs reporting.
DQ13-055 — C
Why C wins: remediation is proportional/business-driven; compare process/system/control/correction/no-action options using cost, benefit, risk, and Owner input.
Why A/B/D lose: “always correct,” “always technical,” and “never accept” ignore economics and risk.
Source: pp. 448–449.
Confusion pair: Remediation vs automatic correction.
DQ13-056 — D
Why D wins: DQ SLAs formalize quality expectations plus response/remediation obligations at boundaries.
Why A/B/C lose: tool licensing, profiling scope, and replacing Governance are not the SLA’s purpose.
Source: pp. 449–450.
Confusion pair: SLA vs tool contract.
DQ13-057 — A
Why A wins: those elements connect business importance, testable quality expectations, thresholds, notification, response and escalation.
Why B/C/D lose: diagrams, counts without commitments, or glossary terms alone omit the service-control layer.
Source: pp. 449–450.
Confusion pair: SLA vs scorecard.
DQ13-058 — B
Why B wins: consumers/Governance need condition, trend, SLA, issue and improvement evidence to act.
Why A/C/D lose: reporting does not itself correct data, not all metrics are universally public, and scorecards do not replace issue workflow.
Source: p. 450.
Confusion pair: Reporting vs remediation.
DQ13-059 — C
Why C wins: a scorecard summarizes quality measures against thresholds across domains/levels.
Why A/B/D lose: incident ticket is case-level; parsing spec is transformation design; fishbone is RCA.
Source: p. 450.
Confusion pair: Scorecard vs issue ticket.
DQ13-060 — D
Why D wins: repeated SLA penalties/rewards require trend evidence against thresholds and commitments over time.
Why A/B/C lose: one-time profile, catalog metadata, or correction log cannot demonstrate recurring SLA performance.
Source: pp. 449–450.
Confusion pair: Trend vs point-in-time score.
DQ13-061 — A
Why A wins: profiling discovers distributions, patterns, relationships and anomalies in actual data.
Why B/C/D lose: it does not assign enterprise ownership, guarantee real-world accuracy, or replace business-approved rules.
Source: pp. 451–454.
Confusion pair: Profiling vs governance/accuracy.
DQ13-062 — B
Why B wins: decomposing a free-form name into meaningful components is parsing/formatting.
Why A/C/D lose: enrichment adds new data; incident management and RCA address different problems.
Source: pp. 451–452.
Confusion pair: Parsing vs standardization/enrichment.
DQ13-063 — C
Why C wins: variant representations are converted to one approved target form: standardization/transformation.
Why A/B/D lose: profiling only observes, enrichment adds data, escalation manages issues.
Source: pp. 451–452.
Confusion pair: Standardization vs parsing/enrichment.
DQ13-064 — D
Why D wins: geocodes/demographics are additional information appended from a trusted source.
Why A/B/C lose: parsing decomposes, uniqueness measures duplicates, escalation is issue workflow.
Source: pp. 452–453.
Confusion pair: Enrichment vs standardization.
DQ13-065 — A
Why A wins: useful DQ metrics are measurable, business relevant, threshold-linked, accountable, actionable/controllable and trendable.
Why B/C/D lose: precision alone, vendor defaults, and exhaustive low-value measurement do not create management value.
Source: pp. 453–455.
Confusion pair: Effective metric vs raw statistic.
DQ13-066 — B
Why B wins: automation handles confident cases while ambiguous cases receive Steward review: manually-directed correction.
Why A/C/D lose: fully automated has no such human gate; direct patching bypasses controlled correction; profiling does not correct.
Source: pp. 457–460.
Confusion pair: Manually-directed vs fully automated/manual.
DQ13-067 — C
Why C wins: Chapter 13 explicitly favors hybrid implementation combining top-down support/consistency/resources with bottom-up discovery/wins.
Why A/B/D lose: either extreme loses the other side’s strength; tool-first ignores readiness/Governance.
Source: pp. 460–461.
Confusion pair: Top-down vs bottom-up vs hybrid.
DQ13-068 — D
Why D wins: populated foreign keys that fail to resolve are an Integrity defect. Criticality increases priority; the right response includes rule/threshold confirmation, root-cause tracing, remediation and ongoing control.
Why A loses: high Completeness cannot override failed Integrity.
Why B loses: the feed is on time, so Timeliness is not the deciding defect.
Why C loses: manual correction alone treats symptoms and omits root cause/monitoring for critical data.
Source: pp. 428–450.
Confusion pair: Completeness vs Integrity + criticality + root cause.