A senior engineer notices the validation plan ignores numeric precision differences and only checks the happy path. What combined risk does this create?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
When you skip edge cases and precision checks, you're letting the exact defects that matter most sail straight through untested. Subtle rounding or truncation errors at boundary and exceptional inputs can reach production undetected because neither is being tested.
Full Explanation
Precision and rounding problems concentrate at boundary and exceptional inputs, so a plan that ignores numeric precision and checks only the happy path leaves the highest-risk cases unverified. That creates the combined risk that subtle rounding or truncation errors at boundary and exceptional inputs could reach production undetected, since neither is being tested. The claim that the transformed application will fail to start is incorrect because logic and precision defects do not prevent a service from starting. The claim that the build pipeline will reject the code automatically is incorrect because a build pipeline checks compilation and configured gates, not behavioural correctness the plan itself failed to test for. The claim that the original COBOL program will need to be deleted before testing can proceed is incorrect because the original program is a comparison baseline and is not deleted as part of testing. For the exam, treat gaps in edge-case and precision coverage as compounding risks, not separate minor ones.