A team is preparing a production rollout and needs to avoid a design mistake. What is the best way to handle inventory accountability while staying aligned with the certification objectives?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation and Infographic
Inventory accountability is like a chain of custody form for evidence in court — break the chain and the evidence gets thrown out. Option C is correct because IBM watsonx.governance keeps owners and reviewers accountable for updates, decisions, and remediation actions. Letting ownership expire, using anonymous owners, and skipping remediation tasks all break the chain. Continuous, named accountability — option C wins!
Full explanation below image
Full Explanation
The correct answer is C. Keep owners and reviewers accountable for updates, decisions, and remediation actions. aligns directly with the 5.0 Define and Govern AI Use Case Inventory exam objective and reflects how IBM watsonx.governance operationalizes this practice in enterprise environments. IBM watsonx.governance is designed to provide the tooling, workflows, and evidence collection mechanisms that make AI trustworthy and auditable from intake through retirement. Choosing this option ensures the implementation is both defensible to regulators and maintainable by governance teams across the full AI lifecycle. Option A is incorrect because it offloads or obscures a governance responsibility in a way that breaks accountability and auditability. Option B is incorrect because it offloads or obscures a governance responsibility in a way that breaks accountability and auditability. Option D is incorrect because it eliminates a required control and leaves the governance program without a critical safeguard. On scenario-based exam questions, the correct answer is consistently the one that operationalizes the IBM governance practice with structured controls rather than approximating it with shortcuts, manual workarounds, or oversimplified rules.