The plan for retiring a fraud-detection model calls for its old approval record to be reused to approve a new, unrelated marketing model. What is wrong with this plan?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
You can't use an old approval to answer a question about a different model doing a different job. It doesn't answer that question for this one.
Full Explanation
The correct answer is the statement that an approval granted for one use case does not establish that a different, unrelated use case meets its own governance obligations, so reusing it is invalid. An approval reflects an assessment of a specific model's risk, purpose, and evidence at that time; a new, unrelated model has its own risk profile and obligations that the old approval never evaluated.
The claim that nothing is wrong, since an approval, once granted, applies to any future model the organisation builds, is incorrect because it treats approval as a generic, permanent credential rather than a judgement tied to a specific use case and its evidence.
The claim that the only issue is that the approval record's file name should be updated to match the new model is incorrect because the substantive problem is that the approval's content does not apply, not that its file name is out of date.
The claim that the plan is fine as long as both models were built by the same team is incorrect because shared authorship does not make two unrelated use cases carry the same risk or satisfy the same obligations.
For the exam, treat approvals as tied to a specific use case; reusing one for an unrelated model is a governance violation, not a shortcut.