CCAR-P Practice Test

CCAR-P Practice Test practice questions, page 5 of 5, with answer review and explanations.

Question 21

You are defining an SLA for a Claude-based assistant. Which SLA definition is most operationally meaningful?

  1. a target that names the metric and threshold but omits the evaluation window and breach consequence, leaving compliance periods and remediation triggers undefined
  2. a measurable target with a defined metric, threshold, evaluation window, and consequence for breach (for example, “p95 per-request latency under 800 ms over a 28-day window”)
  3. a qualitative commitment such as “the system will be fast and reliable”, which names no metric, no threshold, and no evaluation window
  4. a target tied to a stakeholder sentiment measure such as “the team feels satisfied”, which cannot be measured objectively or used to trigger a documented breach response

Question 22

You are producing an architecture guide for a new deployment and must complete the planning steps before drafting each section. Which two steps must be completed BEFORE drafting each section of the guide? (Choose two.) Each correct answer presents part of the solution.

  1. Identify the audience and the questions the guide must answer for that audience.
  2. Translate the guide into the supported regional languages for the candidate population.
  3. Outline the sections of the guide covering overview, components, contracts, flows, runbooks, and limitations.
  4. Validate the guide with the implementation team and incorporate any corrections that arise.
  5. Establish the document under version control with a defined review cadence and approver list.

Question 23

You are presenting an architectural decision to a mixed audience that includes an executive sponsor and the engineering leads who will implement the decision. Which presentation strategy best serves both audiences?

  1. Open with a deep dive into low-level implementation details targeted at engineering leads, and stop there without addressing the business outcomes or trade-offs the executive sponsor needs.
  2. Lead with the decision, the business outcomes it serves, and the trade-offs accepted; follow with the technical rationale, alternatives, and implementation implications for the engineering audience.
  3. Skip the rationale, alternatives, and trade-off discussion entirely and simply announce the chosen decision, leaving both audiences without the context needed to implement or validate it.
  4. Present a single undifferentiated narrative that addresses technical and business concerns with equal weight throughout, treating both audiences as requiring the same depth on every section.

Question 24

You must present an architectural recommendation to deploy a Claude-based contract review assistant to a steering committee that includes the CFO, the general counsel, and the CIO. Each stakeholder cares about different aspects of the decision. How should you structure the recommendation document?

  1. Lead with the architectural decision, then address each stakeholder’s primary concerns directly.
  2. Lead with detailed cost projections across the full multi-year horizon before the rationale section.
  3. Lead with the technical architecture diagram and the full component list before any other section.
  4. Present the same dense narrative throughout with no stakeholder differentiation in any section.

Question 25

You are transitioning a Claude-based deployment from design into implementation. Which handoff package most directly supports a clean transition?

  1. the most recent set of design presentation slides without component-level diagrams, interface contracts, an evaluation framework with a reference set, runbooks, or a known-limitations register
  2. a verbal walkthrough conducted on the day of handoff with no written architecture overview, ADRs, component contracts, evaluation framework, runbooks, playbook, or known limitations
  3. architecture overview, ADRs, component contracts, evaluation framework with reference set, runbooks, on-call playbook, and known limitations
  4. source code alone with no integrating architecture overview, ADRs, component contracts, evaluation framework, runbooks, on-call playbook, or known-limitations register to support the delivery team