A bank's mainframe team has booked subject-matter-expert time to check AI-generated explanations of critical COBOL logic, and the sponsor asks why that step is on the schedule at all. What is the correct justification?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
The tool speeds up understanding, but you still need an SME to confirm the explanation is accurate when a wrong read is costly. You can't just trust it.
Full Explanation
The correct justification is that the generated explanation accelerates understanding, but an SME's review confirms it is accurate where being wrong is costly. Explanation output is quick but not guaranteed correct, so validating it against an SME's judgement makes it safe to rely on, especially where mistakes are expensive.
The claim that SME review is only a formality required by policy, with no bearing on accuracy, is incorrect because the review has a real accuracy purpose, not merely a procedural one.
The claim that SME review is needed because the tool cannot process COBOL written before a certain year is incorrect because the reason is accuracy validation, not a limitation tied to COBOL age.
The claim that SME review is unnecessary for critical logic, since that is where the tool is most reliable, is incorrect because critical logic is exactly where an incorrect explanation causes the most harm, making review more important there, not less.
For the exam, connect SME review to accuracy risk, particularly for logic that matters most.