A team plans to use generated code explanations as deployable replacements for the original COBOL, without further review. What is wrong with this plan?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
You can't ship a summary as if it's code. An explanation describes behavior; it isn't validated, deployable logic, and skipping SME review risks misunderstanding the original COBOL.
Full Explanation
The correct choice says explanation output describes what the code does, is not validated deployable logic, and skipping SME review risks deploying a misunderstanding of the original behaviour. Explanation output is meant to help people understand existing logic; using it as a stand-in for validated, deployable code skips the SME check that confirms the explanation actually matches the original behaviour.
The option saying generated explanations are written in a format the mainframe compiler cannot parse at all is wrong because the problem is what the output represents, not a format or parsing limitation.
The option saying deploying explanation output is fine if first translated into Java is wrong because translating the explanation to another language does not address the missing validation step.
The option saying the plan is sound because explanation and validation are the same step is wrong because explanation and SME validation are distinct steps; treating them as one is exactly the mistake in this plan.
For the exam, keep explanation and validation as separate steps, with SME review between them.