Question 80
During a security and capacity review at a financial analytics firm, engineers report the following issue: An engineer expects a simple threshold rule to improve automatically with more data. The affected work supports risk scoring and historical-data models; traceable controls and predictable throughput are required. Which TWO responses form the best remediation-and-evidence pair? (Select TWO.)
Explanation
Correct Answers
Correct corrective action. 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 fits the specific reported issue: An engineer expects a simple threshold rule to improve automatically with more data. The corresponding failure being reduced is: Calling deterministic lookup or fixed rules a learned model obscures data requirements and can lead to unnecessary training infrastructure.
Correct independent evidence. The proposed solution clearly identifies learned parameters and the training examples or explains why explicit deterministic logic is sufficient. 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. A new input distribution is detected, attributed to a model version and evaluated through an approved retraining and rollback process. This choice concerns production mlops deployment and feedback loop and may be valid in another design. But this case reports 'An engineer expects a simple threshold rule to improve automatically with more data', which calls for reasoning about ai machine learning and rules-based automation. The targeted response is: 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.
Not the most direct the action-and-evidence pair for these facts. Identify CUDA and a compatible driver and runtime as the GPU-compute programming stack, while keeping host orchestration distinct from parallel device kernels. This choice concerns cuda programming model for parallel applications and may be valid in another design. But this case reports 'An engineer expects a simple threshold rule to improve automatically with more data', which calls for reasoning about ai machine learning and rules-based automation. The targeted response is: 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.
Not the most direct the action-and-evidence pair for these facts. Recognize multilayer neural representation learning as deep learning within machine learning and choose it when the data and task justify the added training complexity. This choice concerns deep learning neural networks versus classical ml and may be valid in another design. But this case reports 'An engineer expects a simple threshold rule to improve automatically with more data', which calls for reasoning about ai machine learning and rules-based automation. The targeted response is: 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.