A comparative test fails when checking transformed Java against the legacy COBOL behaviour it replaces. What should the team do with that failure?

Comparative test failure is evidence that the transformation has changed behaviour, so the correct response is to diagnose and correct the generated code, not the check that caught it. Treating the failure as diagnostic evidence and correcting the generated code preserves the legacy COBOL program's intended business logic. Editing the test's expected value to match the current output is wrong because it erases the evidence of the defect while leaving the defect in place. Closing the finding without further work because the failing case occurs rarely is wrong because rarity does not make it unimportant; rare cases are often exactly where transformation tools disagree with the original logic. Revising the documented requirement to match the generated code's behaviour is wrong because the requirement describes what the business needs, not what the generator happened to produce; changing it to fit the code inverts the relationship. For the exam, remember that failure identifies problems in the code, and fixing the code is what resolves them.