Which statement best summarises correct use of the code rewrite workflow that produces Java modules from COBOL?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
You generate the Java modules with the workflow, then review each one for functional equivalence with the original COBOL logic before relying on it. That's the whole workflow, and neither half is optional.
Full Explanation
The correct statement is to generate the Java modules with the workflow, then review each one for functional equivalence with the original COBOL logic before relying on it. The rewrite workflow's output is a candidate translation, and it only becomes trustworthy once reviewed and confirmed to behave the same as the COBOL logic it was generated from. Deploying generated modules directly because the workflow is designed to produce production-ready output is incorrect because assuming production-readiness skips the verification step the workflow was never meant to replace. Skipping review for any module generated from COBOL that compiled and ran without incident historically is incorrect because a clean history for the original program does not establish that its generated equivalent behaves the same way. Treating translating comments from COBOL into the generated Java as sufficient review is incorrect because translated comments address documentation, leaving the actual business logic unverified. For the exam, generation and functional equivalence review are a paired, non-negotiable sequence.