PMI PMP Practice Test 22
Question 210
On an offshore wind maintenance scheduler, the team has already proven that a stale tide-feed cache creates unsafe vessel-window recommendations. Engineering has fixed the cache and documented the causal pathway. The QA lead still proposes inspecting only the final weekly sailing schedule, even though the feed passes through three transformations before publication. What prevention/appraisal choice should the project manager make now?
- Repeat the root-cause investigation although the cache defect and its cause are already verified
- Redefine the vessel transfer acceptance threshold so the already-fixed fault no longer requires testing
- Inspect only the last published schedule because the earlier transformations are too technical for quality assurance
- Add automated tide-data validation at the cache and transformation interfaces and preserve a final acceptance check for the published vessel windows
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Early controls prevent stale data from reaching downstream plans, while final appraisal verifies the result. This is the appropriate combined quality design after root cause is known.
Incorrect Answers
A:The cause has already been established and corrected, so repeating diagnosis delays control design without addressing the escape route.
B:Changing a safety acceptance threshold to avoid evidence of failure is not a legitimate quality-control improvement.
C:End-only appraisal may detect a bad sailing window but misses opportunities to prevent defects from propagating through multiple interfaces.
Question 211
An offshore-wind maintenance platform has TWO independent impediment decisions. (1) A maritime authority MAY take longer than expected to approve winter transfer procedures, but its response is not due for six weeks and the application is still progressing. (2) Today the vessel-booking API returns an error for all work orders and prevents the current iteration's dispatcher acceptance test; the integration owner can restore a prior working endpoint. Select exactly TWO actions, one for each finding.
Select exactly TWO answers.
- Treat the possible future authority delay as an existing missed approval and immediately report a confirmed regulatory breach
- Record the approval-delay scenario as a risk with likelihood, vessel-window impact, responsible owner and a trigger for contingency action
- Close the API problem as soon as it appears in a status report, without retesting work-order dispatch
- Redesign the staffing structure across all offshore teams even though there is no shared-capacity bottleneck
- Register the failed endpoint as a current issue, assign the integration owner to restore service, and require a successful dispatcher retest before closing it
Explanation
Correct Answers
B:Finding 1 is uncertain and future-facing; a monitored risk trigger supports timely response without claiming an event has occurred.
E:Finding 2 is an observed delivery obstruction. Ownership, restoration and retesting address actual iteration impact.
Incorrect Answers
A:The authority has not missed its deadline. Reporting a breach now would conflate a possibility with a fact.
C:A reported blocker is not resolved until the working interface is restored and tested for the affected work orders.
D:The immediate outage is a specific service failure, not evidence of a structural staffing problem requiring broad reorganization.
Question 212
A donor-stewardship platform proposes a data-processing design that replicates sensitive consent records continuously across several high-energy computing nodes. Energy consumption is materially above the charity’s documented operating target, yet the integrated plan has no energy or lifecycle criterion before approval. Which planning response is needed?
- Integrate workstream plans, dependencies and accountable handoff dates in a coherent baseline
- Create an execution strategy that links increments, validation gates and operational transition
- Compare updated forecasts and benefit evidence before choosing a delivery adjustment
- Add material sustainability and compliance requirements to delivery-planning decisions
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:Nonfunctional impact is a critical information need, not a late decoration. Energy and lifecycle impacts must be evaluated as explicit delivery requirements before the design is locked. The donor-data privacy acceptance decision then rests on evidence rather than an unsupported assumption.
Incorrect Answers
A:Integration exposes interdependencies hidden in separate functional plans. The stated facts require another prerequisite first: energy and lifecycle impacts must be evaluated as explicit delivery requirements before the design is locked.
B:An executable delivery strategy connects work packages to usable outcomes. The stated facts require another prerequisite first: energy and lifecycle impacts must be evaluated as explicit delivery requirements before the design is locked.
C:Continued business value should guide adjustments as evidence changes. The stated facts require another prerequisite first: energy and lifecycle impacts must be evaluated as explicit delivery requirements before the design is locked.
Question 213
In city building-permit reform, the planning office says the IT provider deleted an accessibility flag; the provider says the planning office never supplied the flag mapping. Both are preparing breach notices, but the integration test traces and change tickets have not been reconciled. What should the project manager do FIRST?
- Apply supplier penalties based on the planning officer's statement so the next test can proceed
- Reconcile the signed mapping, change tickets and integration traces with both teams to establish which handoff failed before assigning fault
- Change the permit portal to ignore accessibility flags until the office and supplier agree who was responsible
- Ask the mayor to select the responsible team without first gathering the existing mapping and logs
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:The conflict concerns disputed technical provenance. Evidence-based reconstruction must precede assigning contractual liability or selecting a corrective owner, especially where applicants may be denied accessible service.
Incorrect Answers
A:Unverified attribution may punish the wrong party and delay the actual interface repair.
C:Suppressing the missing field worsens an accessibility defect and is not a neutral incident-control measure.
D:A political or executive decision based on unsupported allegations would not establish technical root cause.
Question 214
The electric grid demand forecasting modernization project is approaching forecast reliability authorization for feeder-load forecasts and grid dispatch signals. Steering directors receive exhaustive feeder-load forecasts and grid dispatch signals activity reports with no exception agenda or clear decision rights. Performance data itself is accurate; the governance mechanism is what cannot surface and decide issues. Which action best protects the project's intended outcome?
- Specify governance authority, thresholds and accountable decision roles
- Set a governance agenda, exception reporting and a timely decision cadence
- Define success in terms of measurable outcomes and stakeholder benefits
- Apply transparent ethical reporting and refuse to conceal material evidence
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Oversight should focus on decisions and unresolved impacts. A steering agenda should surface exception decisions, accountable owners and deadlines, not merely activity counts. The forecast reliability authorization decision then rests on evidence rather than an unsupported assumption.
Incorrect Answers
A:Document approval delegation, thresholds and escalation rules before allowing more exceptions. But no such decision is currently required; here, a steering agenda should surface exception decisions, accountable owners and deadlines, not merely activity counts.
C:Business outcomes require explicit verifiable success measures instead of feature-completion totals. But no such decision is currently required; here, a steering agenda should surface exception decisions, accountable owners and deadlines, not merely activity counts.
D:Report material forecast evidence transparently even when the sponsor would prefer a favorable funding story. But no such decision is currently required; here, a steering agenda should surface exception decisions, accountable owners and deadlines, not merely activity counts.
Question 215
A hospital laboratory interface is moving to its requirements sign-off. Clinical IT and pathology staff agree on message latency, but the test specification merely says the system must match the 'right patient'. Recent integration rehearsals showed identical local identifiers across two affiliated clinics. No agreed rate of identity collisions, positive-match evidence or escalation rule exists. What must the project manager do before developers decompose the remaining interface work?
- Implement an unapproved patient-record matching change without deciding its acceptance target
- Reopen the entire product scope boundary even though the authorized interface and participating clinics are agreed
- Work with lab and clinical owners to define measurable patient-identifier matching and exception-handling acceptance rules using real cross-clinic cases
- Treat a completed interface coding task as adequate proof that no incorrect patient link can occur
Explanation
Correct Answer
C:Specific collision cases, matching evidence and exceptions provide the objective conditions needed to accept the interface safely.
Incorrect Answers
A:An implementation change is premature without an agreed observable rule for correctly resolving cross-clinic collisions.
B:The boundary is not disputed; the unresolved requirement is a testable accuracy and patient-safety outcome.
D:Source-code completion cannot establish correct patient matching, especially where equal local identifiers are not globally unique.
Question 216
An online exam-integrity upgrade relies on one departing cryptography consultant who knows why a legacy accommodation token must be validated differently from standard session tokens. The successor team is unnamed, and a certification audit is scheduled after the contract ends. What is the project manager's FIRST knowledge decision?
- Ask the consultant to deposit encrypted notebooks in storage and consider the dependency resolved once the upload succeeds
- Identify the accommodation-token rule as audit-critical knowledge, appoint a security successor and specify a demonstrable test of correct validation behavior
- Remove the accommodation-token path so that only standard candidates can log in after the consultant leaves
- Leave the consultant's account active indefinitely so it can be used for emergency validation fixes
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:The high-impact single-person rule must have a receiving owner and observable learning outcome before a safe handover can be organized. The exemption affects accessibility and security.
Incorrect Answers
A:Archived material does not show that a successor can interpret or test the exception under audit conditions.
C:Eliminating an accessibility path to avoid knowledge transfer would violate the service's intended protections.
D:Unowned persistent credentials create access and audit exposure instead of developing legitimate successor capability.
Question 217
The election-services accessibility project receives a vendor change quotation for audio-ballot output devices after an approved accessibility test exposed an incompatible connector. The quotation would consume a contingency amount beyond the project manager’s delegated authority, but procurement has not determined whether the vendor warranty or the project should bear the cost. No reserve use is authorized. What should the project manager recommend NEXT?
- Release all contingency reserves because accessibility has a mandatory deadline
- Disregard the warranty evidence and schedule the supplier’s quote as already approved expenditure
- Record the quotation as paid actual cost so the forecast looks complete before authorization
- Analyze contractual responsibility, the cost and schedule consequences, and present recovery options to the appropriate authorized decision body
Explanation
Correct Answer
D:The unresolved issue is responsibility for a material unapproved cost and its response; the project manager supplies evidence and options, while the authorized body decides funding or contractual action.
Incorrect Answers
A:Mandatory accessibility does not eliminate reserve authority limits or justify spending before liability is examined.
B:Ignoring the contractual allocation may shift a supplier obligation onto the public budget without an authorized decision.
C:A quotation is neither a paid cost nor an approved commitment and cannot be misrepresented in financial control reports.
Question 218
A mobile-bank account-recovery upgrade is about to use a new identity-verification provider. The team has detailed development tasks but has never assessed the possibility of a provider outage, false customer lockouts, or an unexpected opportunity to reduce fraud through staged checks. No outage has occurred, and no response owners are assigned. What should the project manager do first?
- Issue emergency recovery instructions as though the identity provider had already failed
- Facilitate a risk-identification session with fraud, accessibility, operations and the provider; document event likelihood, impact, assumptions and accountable owners
- Approve additional contingency budget without identifying threats, opportunities or response thresholds
- Transfer the entire risk-management responsibility to the provider's customer-support desk
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:Relevant owners can identify failure and opportunity scenarios, gauge their consequences and establish triggers before selecting treatments.
Incorrect Answers
A:Emergency handling is for an actual disruption. The question describes uncertain events, so escalation as an incident is premature.
C:An ungrounded reserve does not reveal which risk matters, who owns it or how the bank should respond.
D:The provider can help control its service, but the bank remains accountable for customer recovery, fraud exposure and project decisions.
Question 219
A predictive-maintenance pilot includes weekly operator demonstrations. Maintenance crews repeatedly report that the vibration-alert display lacks a machine-isolation reference, yet the backlog closes their comments as 'reviewed' without owners or decisions. The next pilot will use the display at a live plant. What should the project manager establish now?
- Require maintenance crews to attend more demonstrations before their concerns may be reopened
- Reopen the isolation-reference feedback as an owned safety concern, decide its disposition with plant owners and verify the revised workflow with users before the live pilot
- Treat the comment log as complete acceptance because every crew member had an opportunity to speak
- Remove affected maintenance crews from the pilot to simplify stakeholder communication
Explanation
Correct Answer
B:A closed-loop governed decision and observed revalidation respond to a concrete unaddressed operating hazard.
Incorrect Answers
A:Attendance does not address the defect or provide traceability of a safety-related decision.
C:Opportunity to comment is not proof that requirements were addressed or authorized acceptance achieved.
D:Excluding frontline users would hide rather than resolve a known isolation-safety concern.
Question 220
In a returns-processing platform, the same settlement-event duplication has reappeared after three local bug fixes; tests show the patches did not remove the shared retry mechanism. Separately, a battery-return sorting station is about to introduce a newly regulated coolant and the quality plan contains no handling or environmental acceptance criteria for it. Select exactly TWO actions: one for the recurring defect and one for the known material obligation.
Select exactly TWO answers.
- Trace and correct the common retry mechanism, change the defective control and verify that duplicate settlements stop across iterations
- Add the coolant's applicable safety and environmental handling requirements and corresponding acceptance tests before station commissioning
- Collect routine final acceptance results while treating the repeated settlement issue as already closed
- Increase the number of final inspection staff without changing the retry sequence shown to create the failures
- Replace measured coolant rules with an unsupported supplier claim that the material is generally safe
Explanation
Correct Answers
A:The repeated duplication has a known system-level candidate cause. Fixing and retesting that mechanism addresses recurrence, rather than applying another isolated patch.
B:A new regulated material changes binding quality obligations. Specific controls and objective proof are needed before its processing is authorized.
Incorrect Answers
C:Acceptance documentation matters, but it would be misleading to close a defect that continues under the same retry scenario.
D:A larger final inspection team might catch duplicates but does not prevent the erroneous retry condition from creating them.
E:The supplier's generic assurance cannot replace jurisdictional requirements and measured handling verification for the coolant.
