Question 150
During a security and capacity review at a financial analytics firm, engineers report the following issue: A service generates fluent answers but no source evidence. The affected work supports risk scoring and historical-data models; traceable controls and predictable throughput are required. Select TWO: the most appropriate action and the strongest verification of that action. (Select TWO.)
Explanation
Correct Answers
Correct corrective action. Use language models and retrieval from an authorized document index when answers require natural-language interpretation plus current enterprise facts, with groundedness checks. This fits the specific reported issue: A service generates fluent answers but no source evidence. The corresponding failure being reduced is: A generative model can fabricate current organizational facts if it is not connected to approved sources and evaluated for evidence.
Correct independent evidence. Test questions requiring recent internal data return answers supported by the approved retrieved documents and respect access rules. This verifies the corrective approach for the affected risk scoring and historical-data models instead of treating an architecture diagram alone as success.
Incorrect Answers
Not the most direct the action-and-evidence pair for these facts. Identify whether a task uses explicit programmed rules, learns statistical patterns from data or belongs to a broader artificial intelligence application before selecting an ML approach. This choice concerns ai machine learning and rules-based automation and may be valid in another design. But this case reports 'A service generates fluent answers but no source evidence', which calls for reasoning about natural language assistants and retrieval use cases. The targeted response is: Use language models and retrieval from an authorized document index when answers require natural-language interpretation plus current enterprise facts, with groundedness checks.
Not the most direct the action-and-evidence pair for these facts. A justified model comparison uses held-out data and documents whether feature learning improves the task enough to warrant GPU resources. This choice concerns deep learning neural networks versus classical ml and may be valid in another design. But this case reports 'A service generates fluent answers but no source evidence', which calls for reasoning about natural language assistants and retrieval use cases. The targeted response is: Use language models and retrieval from an authorized document index when answers require natural-language interpretation plus current enterprise facts, with groundedness checks.
Not the most direct the action-and-evidence pair for these facts. Map image-based classification, detection or segmentation to a vision model and matching data pipeline, with application-specific accuracy and latency checks. This choice concerns computer vision inspection and imaging use cases and may be valid in another design. But this case reports 'A service generates fluent answers but no source evidence', which calls for reasoning about natural language assistants and retrieval use cases. The targeted response is: Use language models and retrieval from an authorized document index when answers require natural-language interpretation plus current enterprise facts, with groundedness checks.