AIP-C01 Amazon Web Services AWS Certified Generative AI Developer - Professional Free Practice Exam Questions (2026 Updated)

Amazon Q Developer Pro provides a built-in administrator dashboard designed specifically for organizational observability. This dashboard provides native visibility into user-level metrics across the entire AWS Organization, allowing administrators to identify active vs. underused subscriptions and recognize power users. Crucially, it tracks high-level usage patterns, including code acceptance metrics (such as lines of code generated and accepted), which is a key requirement for measuring ROI and identifying training needs. Using the built-in dashboard provides the necessary insights with the least operational overhead, as it does not require building custom data pipelines (Option C) or complex log processing architectures (Option D).

The errors described indicate missing permissions at both the application orchestration and data access levels. The 400 Bad Authorization from BedrockAgentRuntime indicates the Lambda execution role lacks the identity permission to invoke the agent; adding bedrock:InvokeAgent and aoss:APIAccessAll (which allows the principal to interact with OpenSearch Serverless APIs) is necessary. The 403 Forbidden error from OpenSearch Serverless specifically relates to data-plane permissions. Unlike traditional OpenSearch, Serverless uses data access policies . To " manage collections at scale " automatically, a policy must be created that uses pattern-based resource rules (e.g., matching a prefix), ensuring that as new collections or indexes are created, the required principals (the Lambda role and the Bedrock service role) are granted the necessary access without manual policy updates for every new resource.

Option C is the best answer because it implements a decoupled, queue-based moderation pipeline that invokes the expensive model only when the low-latency model is not confident enough. Amazon SQS is designed to decouple distributed application components and support asynchronous processing. AWS documentation describes SQS as a fully managed message queuing service that enables decoupling and scaling of microservices, distributed systems, and serverless applications. This matches the requirement for high resiliency and sudden demand spikes because incoming requests can be buffered in a durable queue rather than overwhelming the model-processing layer.

Using AWS Fargate to process queue messages is also appropriate because Fargate provides serverless container compute for Amazon ECS or Amazon EKS workloads. It allows the company to run scalable processing workers without managing EC2 capacity directly. AWS Prescriptive Guidance includes architectures that use API Gateway, Amazon SQS, and AWS Fargate to process events asynchronously, which supports the same decoupled processing model required in this question.

The two-stage queue design also optimizes cost. The small, low-latency classifier is used first for all requests. Only requests with confidence below 0.65 are placed into the second queue and processed by the larger model. This avoids running the larger model for every moderation request. High-confidence results can be completed quickly by the first-stage processor, while uncertain results are isolated into an asynchronous second-stage workflow.

Option A is incorrect because it synchronously calls the larger model for low-confidence results, which violates the requirement to process low-confidence requests asynchronously. Option B is incorrect because it invokes both models for every request, increasing cost and eliminating the benefit of confidence-based escalation. Option D requires managing EC2 instances and uses keyword heuristics instead of model confidence, so it is less resilient and less aligned with Bedrock-based moderation. Therefore, option C is correct.

Option B is the correct solution because Amazon Q Business natively supports access control lists (ACLs) for S3 data sources using a single, centralized JSON file that maps S3 prefixes to IAM Identity Center groups. This approach directly aligns with the company’s data organization model, where each department’s data is stored under a distinct S3 prefix and each employee belongs to exactly one department group.

Using a single acl.json file at the bucket root minimizes operational overhead by centralizing access control logic in one location. Administrators can update department mappings without touching individual folders or changing IAM permissions, which simplifies governance and reduces the risk of configuration drift. Amazon Q Business automatically evaluates the user’s IAM Identity Center group membership at query time and filters accessible documents accordingly.

Option A increases operational complexity by requiring a separate ACL file in every department folder, which becomes difficult to maintain as departments or prefixes change. Option C attempts to enforce access using IAM permissions sets, but Amazon Q Business access control for S3 data sources is not designed to be managed through IAM condition logic and would significantly increase complexity. Option D introduces a custom metadata structure that is not the supported mechanism for Amazon Q Business access enforcement.

Therefore, Option B provides the cleanest, most scalable, and AWS-recommended solution for enforcing department-based access control with the least operational effort.

Option B is correct because it is the only option that satisfies all requirements: centralized cataloging, automatic data-source discovery, citation metadata, model input/output logging, and tamper-evident immutable audit retention. AWS Glue Data Catalog is designed as a central metadata repository, and AWS Glue crawlers can automatically discover and catalog new or updated data sources. AWS documentation states that crawlers can infer metadata and keep the Data Catalog up to date across sources such as Amazon S3, Amazon RDS, Amazon Redshift, and other supported stores. This directly addresses the requirement to catalog all data sources centrally and update them automatically.

Storing generated summaries in Amazon S3 and writing object tags that include source IDs is appropriate because S3 object tags are queryable metadata that can be used for organization, lifecycle policies, access controls, cost allocation, and downstream indexing. For GenAI traceability, the source ID tag can represent the citation or provenance link from the generated summary back to the original technical document.

Amazon Bedrock model invocation logging is also required here because the company must retain input/output records for every model invocation. AWS documentation states that model invocation logging can collect invocation logs, model input data, and model output data for Amazon Bedrock invocations, with Amazon S3 as a supported delivery destination.

For immutable retention, S3 Object Lock provides write-once-read-many protection and helps prevent objects from being deleted or overwritten for a fixed period or indefinitely. CloudTrail log file integrity validation adds tamper evidence by using hashing and digital signing to detect whether log files were changed, deleted, or forged after delivery.

Option A explicitly omits logs for each invocation, so it fails the audit requirement. Option C lacks automatic source discovery and immutable audit retention. Option D uses configuration tooling, not a cataloging and audit architecture. Therefore, option B is the complete AWS-aligned solution.

==========

Option D requires the least development effort because it uses a managed retrieval workflow that bundles the most time-consuming parts of semantic search: embedding generation, vector indexing, and natural language retrieval. With an Amazon Bedrock knowledge base, the application does not need to implement and operate separate services to (1) generate embeddings for hundreds of millions of records, (2) store and manage vectors, (3) build query-time embedding conversion logic, and (4) implement k-NN search orchestration. Instead, the knowledge base is configured to automatically create embeddings during ingestion, and the application queries it using the Amazon Bedrock Retrieve API , which accepts natural language input and performs the vector search as a managed capability.

The performance requirement (95% of queries within 500 ms) is best served by a purpose-built vector search backend rather than running similarity search directly inside a transactional PostgreSQL system at this scale. A knowledge base is designed for retrieval patterns and can be backed by scalable vector stores, which helps meet latency goals under heavy concurrency. The hourly freshness requirement maps naturally to ingestion updates: the pipeline can re-ingest updated restaurant details on a schedule so the knowledge base remains current without building custom re-embedding workflows in application code.

Cost-effective scaling during peak periods is also easier with a managed retrieval layer because scaling the retrieval workload is separated from the operational database. This avoids overprovisioning PostgreSQL for peak semantic-search traffic and reduces the engineering effort to tune performance, sharding, indexing, and retry logic.

Options B and C can work, but they require the team to build and maintain embedding pipelines, query embedding generation, vector index management, and operational scaling strategies. Option A does not provide semantic search because it relies on keyword-based matching rather than embeddings.

Option B is correct because the application is currently invoking the base foundation model identifier, which routes traffic to the on-demand capacity pool rather than the company’s purchased provisioned throughput. In Amazon Bedrock, provisioned throughput is attached to a specific provisioned resource created through the provisioned throughput APIs. To consume that reserved capacity, inference requests must target the provisioned resource identifier that represents the purchased throughput, not the generic model identifier used for on-demand inference.

The code snippet uses modelId= " anthropic.claude-v2 " . This value selects the on-demand endpoint for that model. As a result, requests are subject to on-demand quotas and throttling behavior, while the provisioned throughput remains idle. This directly explains the CloudWatch observation: provisioned capacity metrics show unused capacity because no traffic is being directed to the provisioned resource, and the on-demand path is throttling because it is exceeding the applicable on-demand limits during peak volume.

Replacing the modelId value with the provisioned throughput ARN returned by the CreateProvisionedModelThroughput workflow ensures the runtime invocation is routed to the reserved capacity. Once traffic is directed correctly, the purchased model units provide the consistent throughput required for predictable performance during business hours, which is exactly why provisioned throughput is used.

Option A could increase capacity, but it does not fix the core issue that the application is not using the provisioned resource at all. Option C can reduce the impact of throttling temporarily, but it adds latency and does not guarantee consistent throughput; it also still wastes the provisioned capacity. Option D changes the response delivery mechanism, but throttling is a capacity routing and quota issue, not a streaming API issue.

Option B is the correct solution because Amazon Bedrock evaluation jobs are purpose-built to assess prompt effectiveness, model behavior, and response quality in a repeatable and automated manner. Evaluation jobs support both quantitative metrics and LLM-based judgment, making them suitable for detecting subtle response quality regressions that simple sentiment or latency metrics cannot capture.

By using custom prompt datasets, the company can consistently test multiple prompt templates and model configurations against the same inputs. This enables accurate comparison across updates and eliminates variability introduced by live traffic sampling. Amazon Bedrock evaluation jobs also support structured scoring outputs, which can be used to enforce objective quality thresholds.

Integrating evaluation jobs directly into AWS CodePipeline ensures that quality checks are automatically triggered whenever prompt templates or configurations change. This creates a gated deployment workflow in which only configurations that meet or exceed the predefined quality threshold are promoted. This directly satisfies the requirement to prevent low-quality configurations from being deployed.

Human reviewers can be incorporated by reviewing evaluation results and scores produced by the jobs, enabling informed feedback without manual data collection. Option A and D rely on custom frameworks and indirect quality signals, increasing complexity and reducing reliability. Option C focuses on operational health rather than response quality.

Therefore, Option B provides the most robust, scalable, and AWS-aligned quality assurance process for Amazon Bedrock–based applications.

The correct combination is C and D because together they enforce centralized governance over both model access and prompt content controls , which are the two core requirements of the scenario.

To ensure employees can use only approved Amazon Bedrock models , governance must be enforced at the organization level and not rely on individual application logic. Service Control Policies (SCPs) are the strongest control mechanism available in AWS Organizations because they define the maximum permissions an account or principal can have. In option C , the SCP prevents any Amazon Bedrock model invocation unless a centrally approved guardrail identifier is specified. This ensures that guardrails are always enforced, regardless of how or where the invocation originates. The additional use of IAM permissions boundaries ensures that even within allowed accounts, employees are restricted to invoking only explicitly approved foundation models.

To prevent specific topics and proprietary information from being included in prompts , Amazon Bedrock Guardrails must be used. Guardrails operate inline during model invocation and can block disallowed content before it is processed by the model. Option D correctly specifies a block filtering policy , which is appropriate when content must be prevented entirely rather than partially redacted. Deploying the guardrail using AWS CloudFormation StackSets allows the company to centrally manage and consistently deploy the same guardrail configuration across all accounts in the organization, ensuring uniform enforcement.

Option E uses mask filtering, which is better suited for redacting sensitive output rather than preventing prohibited content from being submitted in prompts. Option B attempts to use SCPs alone but does not enforce guardrail deployment or content filtering. Option A incorrectly places guardrail enforcement in permissions boundaries, which are not designed to validate request parameters such as guardrail identifiers.

By combining SCP-based enforcement with centrally deployed Bedrock guardrails , options C and D together provide strong, scalable, and centrally managed controls for both content safety and model governance across the organization.

Option A is the only choice that simultaneously addresses all three requirements: (1) higher output consistency for identical inputs, (2) sub-1-second performance, and (3) validated safety controls that block unsafe or hallucinated recommendations.

Provisioned throughput in Amazon Bedrock reserves capacity for the chosen model, which helps stabilize latency and reduces the chance of throttling or variable response times across Regions. This is important for a mobile app with strict latency goals and users distributed across multiple Regions. While provisioned throughput primarily improves performance predictability, it also reduces variability caused by contention during peak demand.

Amazon Bedrock guardrails provide validated safety controls to filter or block unsafe content. Semantic denial rules are appropriate for preventing dangerous brewing guidance (for example, excessively high temperatures) and for reducing hallucinated instructions that violate safety policies. Guardrails can be enforced consistently regardless of prompt-chain complexity, providing a uniform safety layer around the model outputs.

Amazon Bedrock Prompt Management supports controlled prompt versioning and approval workflows. By standardizing prompts, controlling changes, and ensuring the same prompt version is used for identical inputs, the company improves output stability and reduces drift caused by unmanaged prompt edits. Combined with strict configuration control (including fixed inference parameters such as temperature where appropriate), this improves repeatability and increases the likelihood of achieving the 99.5% consistency target.

Option B improves observability and experimentation but does not provide strong safety enforcement or latency stabilization. Option C improves performance through caching and tracing but does not provide validated safety controls and does not directly address cross-Region output consistency. Option D may improve retrieval but does not enforce safety controls or ensure repeatable outputs.

Therefore, Option A best meets the stability, performance, and safety requirements using AWS-native controls.

Option A is the correct solution because Amazon Q Business is explicitly designed to provide secure, governed access to enterprise data while preserving customer ownership and control. Each customer maintains their own Amazon Q Business index, which ensures that data never leaves the customer’s control boundary unless explicitly shared through approved access mechanisms.

By designating Example Corp as a data accessor, customers can allow controlled, auditable access to their indexed content through secure APIs. This model satisfies strict data governance requirements, including data ownership, access transparency, and revocation capability. Customers do not need to expose raw data or deploy infrastructure in Example Corp’s environment.

Amazon Q Business provides high semantic accuracy through managed indexing, ranking, and retrieval optimizations. Because real-time access is not required, this approach avoids the complexity and latency challenges of live federated retrieval while still delivering fast query performance suitable for customer experience use cases.

Option B introduces unnecessary operational complexity by requiring real-time MCP servers per customer. Option C requires customers to manage Amazon Bedrock knowledge bases and enable cross-account access, which increases integration complexity and governance risk. Option D requires shared Amazon Kendra indexes across accounts, which complicates access control and data ownership boundaries.

Therefore, Option A provides the cleanest, lowest-overhead architecture that meets data governance, accuracy, performance, and scalability requirements while minimizing operational burden for both Example Corp and its customers.

AWS Step Functions provides native support for human-in-the-loop workflows, making it the best fit for regulatory oversight requirements. The waitForTaskToken integration pattern is explicitly designed to pause a workflow until an external actor—such as a human reviewer—completes a task.

In this architecture, AI-generated recommendations are sent to a human technician for review. The workflow pauses execution using a task token. Once the technician approves or rejects the recommendation, an AWS Lambda function calls SendTaskSuccess or SendTaskFailure, allowing the workflow to continue deterministically.

This approach ensures full auditability, as Step Functions records every state transition, timestamp, and execution path. Storing review outcomes in Amazon DynamoDB provides durable, queryable audit records required for regulatory compliance.

Option A requires custom orchestration and lacks native workflow state management. Option C incorrectly uses AWS Glue, which is not designed for approval workflows. Option D uses caching instead of durable audit storage and introduces unnecessary complexity.

Therefore, Option B is the AWS-recommended, lowest-risk, and most auditable solution for mandatory human review of AI outputs.

Option C is the correct solution because it provides near real-time monitoring, hallucination detection, and cost anomaly awareness using built-in Amazon Bedrock and Amazon CloudWatch capabilities, with minimal custom development.

By configuring Amazon Bedrock invocation logging with text output logging, the company captures detailed prompt and response data for auditing and analysis without building custom logging pipelines. This data is stored in Amazon S3, providing durable storage for compliance and retrospective investigation.

Using Amazon Bedrock guardrails with contextual grounding checks allows the application to automatically detect hallucinations by verifying whether generated summaries are grounded in the provided clinical documents. This is the AWS-recommended approach for hallucination detection in RAG and summarization workloads and avoids the need to maintain custom evaluation models or pipelines.

Creating Amazon CloudWatch anomaly detection alarms for InputTokenCount and OutputTokenCount metrics enables automatic detection of abnormal token usage patterns that often correlate with runaway prompts, inefficient summarization, or prompt injection attempts. Anomaly detection adapts dynamically to usage trends, making it more effective than static thresholds for early cost warnings.

Option A introduces batch analytics with Glue and Athena, which is not near real time and increases operational overhead. Option B requires managing evaluation jobs and Lambda-based notification logic. Option D focuses on infrastructure-level monitoring and offline dashboards rather than near real-time GenAI quality and cost signals.

Therefore, Option C best meets the requirements with the least operational effort and maintenance overhead.

Option A is the correct solution because hybrid search directly addresses the core retrieval failure modes while maintaining low latency and minimal operational overhead. In medical and scientific domains, exact terminology, abbreviations, and acronyms (for example, drug names, procedures, or conditions) are critical. Pure vector similarity search often underweights these exact matches, leading to missed results and excessive semantically related but irrelevant documents.

Amazon OpenSearch Service natively supports hybrid search, which combines keyword-based retrieval (such as BM25) with vector similarity search. Keyword search ensures precise matching for exact terms and acronyms, while vector search captures semantic meaning and contextual similarity. By blending these approaches, the retrieval system improves both precision and recall without introducing additional infrastructure.

Hybrid search operates within the same OpenSearch index and query path, which preserves low end-user latency even at large scale. This is especially important as the document collection grows to millions of documents. Because OpenSearch handles scoring and ranking internally, no additional orchestration layers or post-processing steps are required.

Option B increases computational cost and latency while failing to address exact-term recall. Option C introduces a new service and ingestion pipeline, increasing operational overhead and latency. Option D adds model hosting, re-ranking infrastructure, and complexity that is unnecessary when OpenSearch provides native hybrid retrieval.

Therefore, Option A delivers the best balance of retrieval quality, scalability, latency, and operational simplicity for medical RAG workloads.