Assuming generated Java modules are production-ready the moment the rewrite workflow finishes is a claim the design review pushes back on. What is the answer?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Generated is not the same as reviewed. The workflow's job ends where the review's job begins. You need the review against the original business logic to confirm functional equivalence.
Full Explanation
The answer that says the workflow generates the modules, but only a review against the original business logic confirms they are functionally equivalent and safe to rely on is correct. Generation is a mechanical translation step; it does not itself verify that the resulting Java behaves the way the original COBOL did, so a review for functional equivalence is what closes that gap.
The answer about licence renewal before deployment is incorrect because licensing is unrelated to whether generated code is functionally correct.
The answer about generated Java always being slower than the original COBOL until manually tuned is incorrect because performance is a separate concern from whether review is required, and is not universally true of generated code.
The answer about output needing format conversion before it compiles is incorrect because format conversion is not the reason review matters; even correctly formatted, compilable code can still diverge in behaviour.
For the exam, review for functional equivalence is required regardless of how clean or well-formatted the generated output looks.