A team is preparing a production rollout and needs to avoid a design mistake. Which approach best demonstrates service boundary validation in a IBM Certified watsonx Mainframe Modernization Architect environment?

Here's the deal: think of service boundary validation like labeling the cables before you close the rack door. If you skip that discipline, troubleshooting gets ugly fast. In this scenario, answer C is the practical move because it keeps the implementation tied to the real IBM capability instead of chasing a shortcut. The other choices sound tempting, but they either skip governance, ignore operational reality, or solve the wrong problem.

The correct answer is C. Validate candidate service boundaries with code, data, transaction, and business context. That aligns with the Domain 5: Refactor Mainframe Applications into Modular Components objective because it applies the feature or practice in the context where IBM expects a practitioner to use it. It also keeps the design reviewable, supportable, and realistic for a production environment.

Let's examine why the other options are incorrect: - Option A is incorrect because it narrows the solution to one artifact or metric and misses the broader service boundary validation requirement. - Option B is incorrect because it uses an overbroad rule instead of matching the design to the actual workload and risk. - Option D is incorrect because it skips the control or validation that makes service boundary validation reliable in production. For the exam, connect the feature to the operational outcome: the right answer is the one that preserves control, accuracy, and maintainability instead of relying on a brittle shortcut.