The current plan justifies each proposed API and modular boundary by referencing a specific business or technical driver, a detail worth checking. What does this indicate about the plan?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
When every design choice can point to a reason, that's exactly what fitting the pattern to the constraint looks like. You're seeing sound practice, not over-engineering.
Full Explanation
The correct choice states that the plan reflects sound practice, because tying each pattern to a stated driver demonstrates the constraint-led decision-making that produces a workable architecture, rather than pattern selection by habit or default. The option calling the plan over-engineered is incorrect because uniformity for its own sake is the failure mode this kind of justification is meant to avoid. The option saying the plan is incomplete because target platform requirements should be listed before any pattern justification is incorrect because ordering documentation sections is a presentation concern, not a measure of the plan's soundness. The option saying the plan is unnecessary because integration boundaries do not need to be revisited during modernisation is incorrect because revisiting integration boundaries is precisely where much of the modernisation value is found. For the exam, a justified, per-module rationale is a positive signal, not a red flag.