Free Amazon Web Services AIP-C01 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

Option B is the correct solution because Amazon Bedrock Prompt Management is purpose-built to manage, govern, and standardize prompt usage at scale across teams and Regions. It provides native version control, allowing teams to track prompt changes over time and ensure that only approved versions are used in production workflows.

Prompt Management supports approval workflows that align with enterprise governance requirements. Approval permissions can be enforced through IAM policies, ensuring that only authorized reviewers can approve or publish prompt versions. This removes the need for custom workflow engines or external storage systems, significantly reducing operational overhead.

Parameterized prompt templates enable consistent prompt structure while allowing controlled variation through defined variables. This ensures consistent quality standards and reduces prompt drift, which is critical when hundreds of prompts are reused across multiple applications and teams.

AWS CloudTrail integrates natively with Amazon Bedrock to provide immutable audit logs for prompt creation, updates, approvals, and usage. These detailed audit trails satisfy compliance requirements and allow security and governance teams to trace prompt activity across Regions and users.

Option A requires significant custom development to coordinate approvals and maintain state. Option C relies on general-purpose workflow services and manual versioning mechanisms that are error-prone and difficult to scale. Option D uses services not designed for large-scale GenAI prompt governance and introduces unnecessary complexity.

Therefore, Option B best meets the requirements for scalable, auditable, and low-overhead governance of AI-generated content using Amazon Bedrock.

Option B is correct because it uses the managed evaluation capability in Amazon Bedrock that is intended specifically for comparing foundation models using a consistent prompt set and producing structured results with minimal custom tooling. In a Bedrock evaluation workflow, you provide an input dataset of prompts, typically in JSON Lines format so each line represents one evaluation record. Storing the JSONL file in Amazon S3 allows Bedrock to read the dataset at scale and write standardized evaluation outputs back to S3 for downstream analysis, sharing, and retention.

The key requirement is to assess both quality and safety across multiple models. A Bedrock evaluation job can use a judge model to score the generated outputs against defined criteria. This approach supports repeatable, apples-to-apples comparisons because the same judge model and scoring rubric can be applied to every candidate foundation model. The candidate models are configured as generators, meaning each evaluation job run uses one selected FM to produce answers for the same prompt set, and the judge model evaluates those answers. That matches the requirement to generate evaluation reports that help a data scientist select the best FM.

Option A does not use Bedrock evaluation jobs, and a knowledge base plus RetrieveAndGenerate is a RAG pattern, not an evaluation framework. It would produce responses but not standardized scoring and reporting suitable for model selection. Option C is incorrect because Bedrock evaluation outputs are delivered to S3, not directly to a BI destination, and selecting the candidate FM as the evaluator conflicts with the intended pattern of using a stable judge model. Option D misuses knowledge bases and retrieval evaluation types when the requirement is prompt-based model assessment rather than evaluating retrieval quality.

The least operational overhead approach is to use managed Amazon Bedrock model evaluation workflows with datasets stored in Amazon S3, and then publish results into Amazon CloudWatch for dashboards. That is exactly what options B and C combine.

Step B correctly places standardized evaluation inputs in Amazon S3 and focuses on granting the evaluation workflow the right permissions to read those datasets. In practice, the key requirement is controlled access to the S3 objects used as evaluation datasets. Establishing IAM permissions and private access patterns (such as using VPC connectivity patterns where applicable to the organization’s networking posture) is aligned with enterprise requirements and avoids building custom storage or data distribution systems for evaluators.

Step C then operationalizes the evaluation lifecycle with minimal infrastructure: a scheduled AWS Lambda function starts evaluation jobs using the S3 dataset location, and a second Lambda function checks job status and pushes results and operational signals to CloudWatch. This meets the platform requirement to surface accuracy metrics in dashboards because CloudWatch metrics/logs can be visualized in dashboards and queried through CloudWatch Logs Insights. It also supports continuous, standardized comparisons across models without requiring developers to run ad-hoc experiments.

The alternatives introduce more operational burden. D and E rely on Amazon SageMaker-based tooling, notebook jobs, and open source evaluation frameworks, which require more environment management, dependency control, scaling considerations, and maintenance over time. A includes CORS, which is primarily a browser-access concern and does not address how Bedrock-managed evaluation jobs securely access S3 in the typical service-to-service pattern.

Therefore, B + C achieves standardized model evaluation, automated scheduling, and dashboard-ready observability with the smallest operations footprint.

Option B best meets the requirements because it provides systematic diagnosis, measurable comparison, and historical traceability of prompt performance. By placing prompts under version control and testing them against complex clinical documents, the company can consistently reproduce issues, track regressions, and compare prompt behavior using quantifiable metrics such as factual accuracy, completeness, and consistency. Automated testing ensures scalability and repeatability, while version history preserves prompt evolution over time.

Option A lacks objective metrics and does not address complex documents. Option C focuses on live traffic experimentation but does not inherently diagnose prompt inconsistencies or preserve detailed historical evaluations. Option D adds medical entity analysis but introduces unnecessary service coupling and does not provide robust prompt version history or automated comparative benchmarking. Therefore, Option B is the most complete and disciplined solution.

Option A is the correct solution because Amazon Q Business is explicitly designed to provide secure, governed access to enterprise data while preserving customer ownership and control. Each customer maintains their own Amazon Q Business index, which ensures that data never leaves the customer’s control boundary unless explicitly shared through approved access mechanisms.

By designating Example Corp as a data accessor, customers can allow controlled, auditable access to their indexed content through secure APIs. This model satisfies strict data governance requirements, including data ownership, access transparency, and revocation capability. Customers do not need to expose raw data or deploy infrastructure in Example Corp’s environment.

Amazon Q Business provides high semantic accuracy through managed indexing, ranking, and retrieval optimizations. Because real-time access is not required, this approach avoids the complexity and latency challenges of live federated retrieval while still delivering fast query performance suitable for customer experience use cases.

Option B introduces unnecessary operational complexity by requiring real-time MCP servers per customer. Option C requires customers to manage Amazon Bedrock knowledge bases and enable cross-account access, which increases integration complexity and governance risk. Option D requires shared Amazon Kendra indexes across accounts, which complicates access control and data ownership boundaries.

Therefore, Option A provides the cleanest, lowest-overhead architecture that meets data governance, accuracy, performance, and scalability requirements while minimizing operational burden for both Example Corp and its customers.

Option B best satisfies the requirements while minimizing development effort by combining managed semantic search capabilities with fully managed foundation models. AWS Generative AI guidance describes semantic search as a vector-based retrieval pattern where both documents and user queries are embedded into a shared vector space. Similarity search (such as k-nearest neighbors) then retrieves results based on meaning rather than exact keywords.

Amazon OpenSearch Service natively supports vector indexing and k-NN search at scale. This makes it well suited for large datasets such as 20 million restaurants and 200 million reviews while still achieving sub-second latency for the majority of queries. Because OpenSearch is a distributed, managed service, it automatically scales during peak traffic periods and provides cost-effective performance compared with building and tuning custom vector search pipelines on relational databases.

Using Amazon Bedrock to generate embeddings significantly reduces development complexity. AWS manages the foundation models, eliminates the need for custom model hosting, and ensures consistency by using the same FM for both document embeddings and query embeddings. This aligns directly with AWS-recommended semantic search architectures and removes the need for model lifecycle management.

Hourly updates to restaurant data can be handled efficiently through incremental re-indexing in OpenSearch without disrupting query performance. This approach cleanly separates transactional data storage from search workloads, which is a best practice in AWS architectures.

Option A does not meet the semantic search requirement because keyword-based search cannot reliably interpret complex natural language intent. Option C introduces scalability and performance risks by running large-scale vector similarity searches inside PostgreSQL, which increases operational complexity. Option D adds unnecessary ingestion and abstraction layers intended for retrieval-augmented generation, not high-throughput semantic search.

Therefore, Option B provides the optimal balance of performance, scalability, data freshness, and minimal development effort using AWS Generative AI services.

The correct answers are A and D because they directly reduce time-to-first-token and stabilize p95 latency for interactive, real-time chat workloads hosted on Amazon SageMaker AI real-time endpoints.

Option D addresses the biggest driver of uneven latency: cold starts and scale-to-zero behavior. By setting the minimum number of instances to greater than 0, the endpoint always has warm capacity and loaded runtime resources, eliminating the first-request penalty that causes users to wait multiple seconds. Enabling response streaming improves perceived latency by returning the first tokens as soon as they are generated rather than waiting for the complete response. This directly targets the abandonment problem described (users leaving after waiting for the first token).

Option A further improves p95 latency and throughput by removing model loading overhead during inference and improving GPU utilization. Preloading model weights during container startup ensures the model is ready before traffic arrives and avoids unpredictable on-demand weight loading. Dynamic batching increases efficiency by grouping compatible requests into a single inference pass, reducing per-request overhead and improving GPU saturation. When tuned properly for interactive workloads, batching can reduce tail latency while preserving responsiveness by enforcing small batch windows.

Option B makes latency worse because setting minimum instances to 0 and lazily loading weights guarantees cold-start delays and unpredictable first-token performance. Option C similarly increases cold-start behavior through lazy loading and offers no batching benefits. Option E is designed for non-interactive workloads and introduces queueing and storage latency, which conflicts with the 800 ms p95 requirement for interactive chat.

Therefore, A and D are the best combination to achieve consistently low p95 latency and fast first-token streaming for a SageMaker-hosted chat assistant.

Option B best meets all stated requirements by correctly combining PII protection, evaluation before launch, and data residency compliance using Amazon Bedrock Guardrails. Amazon Bedrock guardrails provide native sensitive information filtering that operates inline during model invocation, making them well suited for preventing personal data exposure in customer-facing AI assistants.

The requirement to evaluate how effective the AI assistant is at preventing exposure before release is best addressed by using mask mode during development and testing. Mask mode allows responses to be generated while automatically redacting detected personal information, making it easy for developers and reviewers to see where and how PII would have appeared. This provides concrete validation that the guardrail rules are correctly configured without fully blocking responses, which is ideal for quality assurance and pre-production evaluation.

For production, switching the guardrail to block mode ensures that responses containing personal information are fully prevented from being returned to users. This offers the strongest protection and aligns with compliance expectations for customer account data. Block mode is appropriate once confidence in the guardrail configuration has been established during testing.

The data residency requirement is addressed by deploying a copy of the guardrail in each AWS Region where the application operates. Amazon Bedrock guardrails are Region-specific resources, and using Region-local guardrails ensures that inference, filtering, and enforcement all occur within the same Region as the customer data. This avoids cross-Region processing and helps the company comply with regulatory and contractual data residency policies.

Option A and D incorrectly rely on cross-Region guardrails, which can violate data residency constraints. Option C focuses on topic filtering rather than sensitive information filtering and keeps detect mode enabled in production, which does not actively prevent PII exposure. Therefore, B is the only option that fully satisfies safety, compliance, and evaluation requirements.

Option A is the correct solution because hybrid search directly addresses the core retrieval failure modes while maintaining low latency and minimal operational overhead. In medical and scientific domains, exact terminology, abbreviations, and acronyms (for example, drug names, procedures, or conditions) are critical. Pure vector similarity search often underweights these exact matches, leading to missed results and excessive semantically related but irrelevant documents.

Amazon OpenSearch Service natively supports hybrid search, which combines keyword-based retrieval (such as BM25) with vector similarity search. Keyword search ensures precise matching for exact terms and acronyms, while vector search captures semantic meaning and contextual similarity. By blending these approaches, the retrieval system improves both precision and recall without introducing additional infrastructure.

Hybrid search operates within the same OpenSearch index and query path, which preserves low end-user latency even at large scale. This is especially important as the document collection grows to millions of documents. Because OpenSearch handles scoring and ranking internally, no additional orchestration layers or post-processing steps are required.

Option B increases computational cost and latency while failing to address exact-term recall. Option C introduces a new service and ingestion pipeline, increasing operational overhead and latency. Option D adds model hosting, re-ranking infrastructure, and complexity that is unnecessary when OpenSearch provides native hybrid retrieval.

Therefore, Option A delivers the best balance of retrieval quality, scalability, latency, and operational simplicity for medical RAG workloads.

Option B best meets the latency, resilience, and data residency requirements while keeping operational complexity low by using built-in Amazon Bedrock cross-Region inference behavior through inference profiles. Cross-Region inference profiles are designed to provide higher availability and better traffic absorption when a single Region experiences throttling, transient capacity constraints, or quota-related degradation. By selecting the appropriate geography-scoped inference profile (for example, a Europe-scoped profile for European users and a North America-scoped profile for North American users), the application can keep inference traffic within the required geographic boundary. This directly supports EU data residency needs because European requests can be served only by Europe-based Regions while still benefiting from multi-Region resilience inside Europe.

The question also highlights degradation when Regional traffic spikes hit quotas. Cross-Region inference profiles help mitigate these conditions by allowing Bedrock to serve requests from another Region within the same geography, improving continuity during spikes without requiring the company to implement custom retry-and-failover logic across Regions. This reduces development and operational burden compared to building and maintaining a bespoke routing and fallback system.

Using separate Amazon API Gateway HTTP APIs to direct European and North American users to the correct endpoints simplifies request routing and provides a clean boundary for compliance controls, logging, and monitoring. It also allows each geography to scale independently and maintain consistently low latency by keeping users close to the entry point and the Bedrock geography they must use.

Option A requires custom routing and manual operational monitoring and does not inherently solve quota-driven degradation. Option C adds significant complexity by embedding throttling retries and cross-Region selection logic in Lambda while still needing careful controls to prevent cross-border routing mistakes. Option D introduces the highest operational complexity and can inadvertently violate residency if failover crosses geographies unless additional safeguards are implemented.