By the time a proof of concept has grown into a governed modernisation programme, AI-generated documentation and code are available. What should happen to the mainframe subject-matter experts?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Generated output tells you what the code appears to do. You still need the mainframe SMEs to confirm it matches the business meaning and catches the edge cases that matter.
Full Explanation
The correct choice is that the mainframe subject-matter experts should stay involved, to confirm that the generated output reflects the intended business meaning and covers the edge cases that matter. AI-generated explanations and code are a starting point, and confirming they capture the real business rules and their edge cases requires the judgement of people who understand the original intent.
The option saying they should be released from the project, since the AI output now covers what they knew, is incorrect because generated output can misstate intent or miss an edge case, and there is no other reliable way to catch that without SME review.
The option saying they should be reassigned to only review Java code, since COBOL is no longer relevant, is incorrect because SME value lies in business knowledge, which is not tied to a particular programming language and is still needed to validate the transformed Java against the original COBOL's intent.
The option saying they should sign off once, at project kickoff, and are not needed again, is incorrect because a single early sign-off cannot cover findings that only surface once generated artefacts exist to review.
For the exam, SME involvement continues through the engagement, not just at the start.