A customer's compliance team requires that a specific dataset never leave a designated jurisdiction, while analysts in another region need to run reports that include aggregates from it. Which design satisfies both?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Residency restricts where the data rests, not whether anyone may ever learn anything from it. You keep the rows put, let policy decide which aggregates may cross, and both requirements are met without a copy sitting in the wrong country.
Full Explanation
The correct design is keeping the dataset in its jurisdiction and exposing only permitted aggregates, with governance policies enforcing what may cross the boundary. Residency constrains where data is stored. Keeping the dataset in place and exposing only governed aggregates satisfies the constraint while meeting the reporting need, with policy determining exactly what crosses the boundary.
Replicating the dataset to the analysts' region and relying on access policies there to restrict it is incorrect because replication creates a copy of the restricted data in another jurisdiction, which is the specific act the requirement prohibits. Access policy on the copy does not undo its location.
Giving the analysts direct bucket credentials for the jurisdiction's storage so no copy is made is incorrect because handing out storage credentials bypasses the governance layer entirely - the analysts could read the raw objects, aggregate or not - and is the least controlled option available.
Denying the reporting requirement, since any cross-region access breaches residency, is incorrect because it treats residency as prohibiting all use. Governed aggregate access is a well-established accommodation.
For the exam, distinguish where data rests from what may be derived from it; residency governs the first.