Consider a pilot deployment where a program named CUSTUPD.cbl actually handles order processing, not customer updates as its name implied. What does this illustrate?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Names drift from what code actually does, sometimes across decades. You can't trust a file name to reveal business capability. Discovery reads the behaviour, not the label.
Full Explanation
The correct choice is the statement that file names cannot be trusted to reveal business capability, which is why discovery needs to examine actual code, data flows and transactions. Mainframe estates accumulate naming inconsistencies over long lifespans; a file name is a historical label, not a reliable statement of current business function, so discovery has to look at what the code and data actually do.
Renaming the program first is a cosmetic fix and does not address the underlying discovery gap.
The claim that file-naming conventions on mainframe systems are always reliable and this is an unusual exception is wrong because this kind of mismatch is common.
The claim that discovery is unnecessary once a program's file name has been read reverses the lesson: a file name is precisely insufficient on its own.
For the exam, treat 'assume file names reveal business capability' as a wrong idea to rule out.