AIP-C01 Questions and Answers

Option A is the correct solution because it uses native Amazon Bedrock governance and evaluation capabilities to meet regulatory, performance, and deployment timeline requirements with the least operational overhead.

Amazon Bedrock guardrails provide built-in safety controls that enforce responsible AI policies directly during inference. Custom content filters and toxicity detection protect customer interactions and prevent disallowed investment guidance patterns without requiring custom application logic. Guardrails operate inline and are optimized for low latency, which helps meet the strict 200 ms response-time requirement.

Hallucination detection is addressed through Amazon Bedrock Model Evaluation, which supports automated evaluation at scale using LLM-as-a-judge techniques. This enables the company to detect factual inaccuracies and policy violations systematically, without building custom evaluation pipelines or requiring extensive human review. Evaluation outputs can be surfaced as metrics.

Storing all prompt-response pairs in Amazon DynamoDB provides a low-latency, highly scalable audit store that aligns with financial regulatory requirements. Using TTL enforces data retention policies automatically, reducing compliance risk and storage overhead.

Amazon CloudWatch custom metrics integrate seamlessly with existing compliance dashboards, allowing near–real-time monitoring of safety interventions, hallucination rates, and drift indicators. CloudWatch anomaly detection can be applied to these metrics to surface behavior changes quickly.

Option B relies on custom Lambda logic and S3-based auditing, increasing latency and operational complexity. Option C introduces additional services that increase setup time and may exceed the 60-day deployment window. Option D uses non–Bedrock-native monitoring and adds unnecessary infrastructure layers.

Therefore, Option A provides the most complete, compliant, and low-overhead governance solution for a regulated GenAI financial services application.

Option B best satisfies the requirements because it directly applies Retrieval Augmented Generation principles using managed Amazon Bedrock Knowledge Bases, which are designed to handle large, complex documents while preserving contextual relationships. Financial reports often interleave tables with explanatory narrative, and accurate analysis depends on keeping those elements logically connected. By segmenting documents based on their structural layout—for example, sections, subsections, tables, and surrounding commentary—the knowledge base can retrieve semantically relevant chunks that maintain this relationship during inference.

Amazon Bedrock Knowledge Bases support contextual chunking strategies that go beyond simple fixed-size segmentation. This is critical for financial documents, where a metric in a table may be explained in adjacent paragraphs or footnotes. Context-aware chunking ensures that retrieved content includes both the numeric data and its interpretation, enabling the foundation model to generate accurate, grounded responses. Including citations further improves analyst trust and auditability by allowing users to trace answers back to specific source sections, which is a common requirement in financial environments.

Scalability is another key requirement. Knowledge Bases manage embedding generation, indexing, and retrieval orchestration as a managed service, which allows the solution to scale across large document collections without requiring custom infrastructure or model hosting. This approach also supports efficient updates as new quarterly reports are added, ensuring the retrieval layer remains current.

Option A does not scale well because processing entire 5–100 page documents in a single prompt increases token usage, latency, and cost while risking context truncation. Option C relies on fixed-size chunking triggered at query time, which often breaks semantic relationships in structured financial content. Option D introduces unnecessary architectural complexity by splitting structured and unstructured data into separate applications, increasing operational overhead without providing better contextual retrieval than a unified RAG approach.

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.

The least operational overhead approach is to use managed Amazon Bedrock model evaluation workflows with datasets stored in Amazon S3, and then publish results into Amazon CloudWatch for dashboards. That is exactly what options B and C combine.

Step B correctly places standardized evaluation inputs in Amazon S3 and focuses on granting the evaluation workflow the right permissions to read those datasets. In practice, the key requirement is controlled access to the S3 objects used as evaluation datasets. Establishing IAM permissions and private access patterns (such as using VPC connectivity patterns where applicable to the organization’s networking posture) is aligned with enterprise requirements and avoids building custom storage or data distribution systems for evaluators.

Step C then operationalizes the evaluation lifecycle with minimal infrastructure: a scheduled AWS Lambda function starts evaluation jobs using the S3 dataset location, and a second Lambda function checks job status and pushes results and operational signals to CloudWatch. This meets the platform requirement to surface accuracy metrics in dashboards because CloudWatch metrics/logs can be visualized in dashboards and queried through CloudWatch Logs Insights. It also supports continuous, standardized comparisons across models without requiring developers to run ad-hoc experiments.

The alternatives introduce more operational burden. D and E rely on Amazon SageMaker-based tooling, notebook jobs, and open source evaluation frameworks, which require more environment management, dependency control, scaling considerations, and maintenance over time. A includes CORS, which is primarily a browser-access concern and does not address how Bedrock-managed evaluation jobs securely access S3 in the typical service-to-service pattern.

Therefore, B + C achieves standardized model evaluation, automated scheduling, and dashboard-ready observability with the smallest operations footprint.

Option A best satisfies the requirement to capture multi-hop, highly interconnected relationships with minimal operational overhead. Traditional vector similarity search excels at finding semantically similar text but is not optimized for reasoning over explicit entity-to-entity relationships, especially when analysts need indirect, multi-hop connections (for example, fund → holding → issuer → sector → regulation). Graph-based retrieval is designed specifically for these kinds of relationship traversals.

GraphRAG combines retrieval-augmented generation with graph-aware context selection. By representing entities and their relationships in a graph store, the system can traverse multiple hops to assemble a holistic set of relevant facts. This improves completeness and reduces the chance that the model misses indirect relationships that are essential for accurate investment guidance.

Amazon Neptune Analytics provides a managed graph analytics environment capable of efficiently traversing and analyzing complex relationship networks. When integrated with Amazon Bedrock Knowledge Bases, it reduces custom engineering by providing managed ingestion, retrieval, and orchestration patterns suitable for GenAI applications. This lowers operational overhead compared to building and maintaining custom multi-stage retrieval logic.

Meeting the sub-3-second requirement is also more feasible with a graph-optimized engine because multi-hop traversals can be executed efficiently compared to chaining multiple vector searches and joining results in an application layer. The managed nature of Knowledge Bases and Neptune Analytics reduces maintenance, scaling, and operational burden while enabling strong performance.

Option B and C require extensive custom logic and orchestration, increasing complexity and latency. Option D is not designed for graph-style multi-hop exploration and would require significant custom indexing and retrieval logic.

Therefore, Option A is the most AWS-aligned and operationally efficient approach for multi-hop relationship-aware RAG with strong performance.

Option C is the correct solution because Amazon Bedrock guardrails are purpose-built to enforce defense-in-depth safety controls for GenAI applications with minimal operational overhead. Guardrails provide managed, policy-based enforcement that operates before prompts are sent to the foundation model and after responses are generated, which directly satisfies the requirement that PII must not be sent to the model and must not appear in outputs.

By configuring a sensitive information policy, the application can automatically detect and redact PII in user inputs and model responses without building custom preprocessing pipelines. This approach is more reliable and scalable than regex or prompt engineering techniques, which are brittle and error-prone for sensitive data handling.

The topic policy capability in Amazon Bedrock guardrails allows the bank to explicitly block investment advice topics, ensuring regulatory compliance. This policy-based approach is safer and more auditable than attempting to steer the model only through prompt instructions.

Using the Converse API enables structured, standardized interactions with the model and supports consistent logging of requests and responses. Enabling delivery logging and image logging to Amazon S3 ensures that all customer interactions, including documents and images, are captured in a durable, auditable storage layer. This directly supports compliance, regulatory audits, and forensic analysis.

Option A incorrectly relies on Amazon Macie, which is designed for data-at-rest discovery rather than real-time conversational filtering. Option B introduces custom Lambda pipelines and topic modeling, increasing operational complexity. Option D relies on regex and prompt engineering, which do not meet financial-grade compliance standards.

Therefore, Option C delivers the strongest security, governance, and auditability with the least operational effort.

Option B is the correct solution because it uses native AWS governance, access control, and auditing capabilities to protect PII while enabling controlled FM access to authorized data subsets. AWS Lake Formation is designed specifically to manage fine-grained permissions for data lakes, including column-level access control, which is critical when handling sensitive financial and PII data.

LF-Tags allow data administrators to define scalable, attribute-based access control policies. By tagging databases, tables, and columns with business unit and Region metadata, the company can enforce policies that ensure the foundation model only accesses approved datasets with PII-redacted columns. This eliminates the risk of sensitive data leaking into production inference workflows.

IAM role-based authentication ensures that the FM accesses data using least-privilege credentials. This integrates cleanly with Amazon Bedrock, which supports IAM-based authorization for service-to-service access. AWS CloudTrail provides immutable audit logs for all access attempts, satisfying compliance and regulatory requirements.

Option A introduces unnecessary data duplication and weak governance controls. Option C relies on custom application logic, increasing operational risk and complexity. Option D bypasses Lake Formation’s fine-grained controls and relies on presigned URLs, which reduces governance visibility and control.

Therefore, Option B best meets the requirements for security, compliance, scalability, and auditability when integrating Amazon Bedrock with a Lake Formation–governed data lake.

Option A best meets the requirements because it applies an AWS-aligned multi-agent pattern that cleanly separates responsibilities: a supervisor agent performs intent classification and orchestration, while specialized collaborator agents handle domain-specific tasks using the right knowledge sources. This structure is well suited for healthcare workflows where clinical questions, scheduling, and insurance processes require different policies, terminology, and data access boundaries.

The requirement for appropriate domain-specific responses is addressed by routing each user query to a department-focused collaborator agent that is grounded with its own department-specific knowledge base. Using Retrieval Augmented Generation with the correct knowledge base improves factual alignment and reduces cross-department leakage (for example, avoiding claims content in a clinical answer). It also supports better prompt grounding and more consistent tone and constraints per department.

The requirement to isolate data maps to using separate knowledge bases per agent and enforcing access through IAM controls, ensuring that each agent can retrieve only from the authorized datasets. This is important for minimizing unintended exposure of sensitive or irrelevant departmental data and supports governance and compliance needs.

For scalability and thousands of parallel interactions, this architecture minimizes contention and bottlenecks. Each collaborator agent can scale independently because requests are distributed across multiple agents and multiple retrieval backends. Operationally, onboarding new features is also simpler: the company can add a new collaborator agent (for example, “billing disputes” or “pharmacy refills”) with its own knowledge base and policies without redesigning the entire assistant.

Option B introduces unnecessary complexity with multiple supervisors and manual handoffs. Option C overloads a single agent with broad instructions and rule-based routing, which increases prompt complexity and reduces maintainability as features grow. Option D creates high operational complexity and risks inconsistent outputs when merging responses from parallel supervisors, and it weakens data isolation by using a shared knowledge base across agents.

Option B is the best fit because hierarchical chunking is designed to preserve local detail while keeping broader document context available during retrieval, which directly addresses the problem of questions spanning methodology, results, and discussion. In large scientific papers, a single answer often depends on linked paragraphs across adjacent sections. If the knowledge base retrieves only small, isolated chunks, the RAG system can cite text that is semantically close to a query term but not contextually correct, producing inconsistent answers and irrelevant citations.

With hierarchical chunking, the knowledge base creates child chunks that are small enough for high-precision vector similarity matching, such as 200 tokens, which improves the likelihood that the retrieved text is tightly related to the user’s query. At the same time, each child chunk is associated with a larger parent chunk, such as 1,000 tokens, which retains the surrounding narrative and section-level context. This structure helps the retrieval pipeline return passages that include the relevant subsection plus the explanatory framing that prevents misinterpretation, which is especially important in scientific writing where methods, results, and discussion are interdependent.

The configured overlap further reduces boundary effects where key statements split across chunks. This improves continuity for paragraphs that bridge sections, such as a results paragraph that references the methodological setup or a discussion paragraph interpreting a specific metric.

Option A can improve consistency slightly, but fixed-size chunking still risks separating related paragraphs and does not provide a built-in mechanism to retrieve broader context linked to precise matches. Option C can create more meaningful boundaries, but it does not guarantee the parent-level context that hierarchical chunking provides at retrieval time. Option D increases operational burden and is not practical at the scale of 25 million

Option B is the most appropriate solution because it directly aligns with AWS-recommended architectural patterns for building scalable, observable, and resilient generative AI applications on Amazon Bedrock. The requirements clearly distinguish between simple and complex routing decisions, and this option addresses both in an optimal way.

Simple routing based on file extension is latency sensitive. Handling this logic directly in the application code avoids unnecessary orchestration, state transitions, and service calls. This approach ensures that straightforward requests, such as routing images to vision-capable foundation models or text files to language models, are processed with minimal overhead and maximum performance.

For complex routing based on content semantics, AWS Step Functions is specifically designed for multi-step workflows that require analysis, branching logic, and error handling. Semantic routing often requires inspecting meaning, intent, or structure before selecting the appropriate foundation model. Step Functions enables this by orchestrating analysis steps and applying conditional logic to determine the correct model to invoke using the Amazon Bedrock InvokeModel API.

A key requirement is detailed execution history. Step Functions provides built-in execution tracing, including state inputs, outputs, and error details, which is essential for auditing, debugging, and compliance. Additionally, Step Functions supports native retry and catch mechanisms, allowing the workflow to automatically fall back to alternate foundation models if a primary model invocation fails. This directly satisfies the fallback requirement without introducing excessive custom code.

The other options lack one or more critical capabilities. Lambda-only logic lacks deep observability and structured fallback handling, SQS introduces additional latency and limited workflow visibility, and multiple coordinated workflows increase architectural complexity without added benefit.

The correct combination is B and C because together they address both workload diversity and hybrid deployment requirements with minimal custom engineering.

Option B provides consistent, high-throughput access by configuring provisioned throughput in Amazon Bedrock. Provisioned throughput guarantees predictable capacity and performance, which is essential for batch processing workloads that require sustained inference rates. This eliminates cold starts and throttling concerns that can occur with purely on-demand usage, making it well suited for high-volume enterprise workloads.

Option C enables hybrid deployment across cloud and on-premises environments by deploying foundation models to Amazon SageMaker AI endpoints and using Amazon SageMaker Neo for edge and on-premises optimization. SageMaker Neo compiles models for target hardware, allowing inference to run efficiently outside the AWS cloud while still using AWS-managed tooling. Orchestrating these deployments with AWS Lambda allows consistent invocation patterns across environments.

Option A uses asynchronous endpoints, which are not suitable for real-time, low-latency inference. Option D addresses scaling but does not support on-premises or hybrid deployment. Option E simplifies model onboarding but does not address hybrid execution or guaranteed throughput.

Therefore, Options B and C together provide real-time and batch support, predictable performance, and true hybrid deployment while minimizing operational overhead.

Option B is correct because it uses the managed evaluation capability in Amazon Bedrock that is intended specifically for comparing foundation models using a consistent prompt set and producing structured results with minimal custom tooling. In a Bedrock evaluation workflow, you provide an input dataset of prompts, typically in JSON Lines format so each line represents one evaluation record. Storing the JSONL file in Amazon S3 allows Bedrock to read the dataset at scale and write standardized evaluation outputs back to S3 for downstream analysis, sharing, and retention.

The key requirement is to assess both quality and safety across multiple models. A Bedrock evaluation job can use a judge model to score the generated outputs against defined criteria. This approach supports repeatable, apples-to-apples comparisons because the same judge model and scoring rubric can be applied to every candidate foundation model. The candidate models are configured as generators, meaning each evaluation job run uses one selected FM to produce answers for the same prompt set, and the judge model evaluates those answers. That matches the requirement to generate evaluation reports that help a data scientist select the best FM.

Option A does not use Bedrock evaluation jobs, and a knowledge base plus RetrieveAndGenerate is a RAG pattern, not an evaluation framework. It would produce responses but not standardized scoring and reporting suitable for model selection. Option C is incorrect because Bedrock evaluation outputs are delivered to S3, not directly to a BI destination, and selecting the candidate FM as the evaluator conflicts with the intended pattern of using a stable judge model. Option D misuses knowledge bases and retrieval evaluation types when the requirement is prompt-based model assessment rather than evaluating retrieval quality.

Option D best satisfies all functional, performance, and governance requirements while minimizing architectural complexity. The requirement explicitly states that all filtering must complete before content reaches the foundation model, which rules out asynchronous or streaming-based approaches that could delay enforcement.

Amazon Comprehend supports toxicity detection, prompt safety classification, and PII detection with entity redaction as managed capabilities. Running these filters in parallel ensures low end-to-end latency, which is essential for customer-facing communication platforms. Parallel execution avoids the cumulative latency that would be introduced by sequential pipelines.

Toxicity detection identifies offensive or abusive content early. Prompt safety classification detects requests for unethical, harmful, or manipulative advice, which directly addresses inappropriate advice solicitation requirements. PII detection with entity redaction ensures that customer privacy is preserved before data is sent to the FM, preventing sensitive information from being processed or echoed in generated responses.

Configuring thresholds allows fine-grained control over sensitivity while maintaining acceptable false-positive rates. Using CloudWatch metrics and alarms enables continuous monitoring of filtering behavior and intervention rates without adding custom routing or human review pipelines that would slow responses.

Option A lacks PII redaction. Option B introduces unnecessary model-building complexity and delayed PII checks. Option C adds sequential latency and introduces human review routing, which violates the response-time requirement.

Therefore, Option D provides the most robust, performant, and AWS-aligned layered content filtering solution.

The correct answers are A and D because they collectively satisfy the requirements for structured inputs, consistent output formatting, and non-blocking detection of bullying language.

Option A is required because Amazon Bedrock Prompt Management enables prompt templates with explicit input variables and defined output formats. By defining the four required inputs as variables, the company ensures that every invocation of the Amazon Nova Pro FM receives the correct structured inputs. Specifying the output format ensures consistent responses, which is essential for a grants application workflow. Adding the managed prompt to the prompts node of the flow allows Bedrock Flows to invoke the model using this standardized configuration.

Option D addresses the requirement to receive notifications when bullying language is detected without blocking responses. Amazon Bedrock guardrails support content filters with configurable actions. By applying the insults content filter and setting the response action to detect, the system flags responses containing bullying or insulting language while still allowing the response to be returned. This enables monitoring, alerting, and auditing without interrupting application functionality.

Option B is incorrect because setting the filter response to block contradicts the requirement not to block all flagged responses. Option C introduces a prompt router, which is unnecessary because the application uses a single Amazon Nova Pro FM. Option E incorrectly attempts to enforce input variables and output formatting through an inference profile, which does not provide prompt-level variable enforcement or formatting guarantees.

Therefore, A and D together provide structured prompt management and non-blocking safety detection with minimal operational complexity.

Option A is the best solution because it satisfies streaming, token control, and retry requirements while keeping operational overhead low by using fully managed, serverless AWS services. Amazon API Gateway HTTP APIs provide a lightweight, cost-effective front door for APIs and integrate cleanly with AWS Lambda for request processing and security controls.

AWS Lambda response streaming allows the API to begin returning content to the client as soon as partial model output is available, reducing perceived latency and improving user experience for long responses. Using Lambda as the integration layer also provides a centralized place to enforce token-aware request handling, such as rejecting oversized requests, truncating optional context, or applying consistent limits across users and tenants to manage compute usage.

Retry logic is best handled in the client or integration layer for transient failures such as timeouts and throttling. Lambda can implement controlled retries with exponential backoff and jitter, while API Gateway timeouts help bound request lifetimes and prevent hung connections from consuming resources indefinitely. Because the model service is managed, the company avoids infrastructure management and focuses only on request shaping, safety, and resiliency behavior.

Option B is not suitable because client-side polling is not true streaming, front-end token enforcement is insecure and inconsistent, and API Gateway does not provide model-aware retry behavior on its own. Option C introduces container hosting and scaling complexity, which increases operational overhead compared to serverless. Option D can work, but REST APIs are generally heavier than HTTP APIs for this pattern and do not reduce overhead compared to Option A.

Therefore, Option A provides the required streaming and resiliency capabilities with the least infrastructure management effort.

Option B best satisfies the requirements with the least custom development effort by using native Amazon Bedrock capabilities for prompt experimentation, traffic management, fairness monitoring, and alerting. Amazon Bedrock Prompt Management allows teams to define and manage multiple prompt variants without code changes, making it ideal for comparing recommendation strategies across demographic groups.

Amazon Bedrock Flows enables controlled traffic allocation between prompt variants, which supports real-time A/B testing. This allows the company to collect live fairness metrics under production conditions instead of relying on offline analysis. Because Flows are fully managed, they eliminate the need for custom routing or experimentation frameworks.

Amazon Bedrock guardrails provide built-in monitoring and intervention mechanisms. When configured for fairness-related checks, guardrails can detect policy violations and surface metrics such as InvocationsIntervened, which indicate when outputs are modified or blocked due to rule enforcement. These metrics integrate directly with Amazon CloudWatch, enabling real-time dashboards and threshold-based alarms. Setting an alarm at a 15% discrepancy threshold satisfies the alerting requirement with minimal configuration.

Weekly reporting can be generated from CloudWatch metrics using scheduled exports or dashboards without building custom analytics pipelines. Option A requires significant custom post-processing logic. Option C introduces an additional service with higher operational overhead and is not optimized for real-time monitoring. Option D focuses on offline evaluation jobs and does not provide continuous real-time fairness monitoring.

Therefore, Option B provides the most AWS-native, scalable, and low-effort solution for fairness evaluation and monitoring.

This scenario requires strict data residency, regional processing, classification, and auditable decision trails, which Option C addresses using AWS-native governance services.

Region-specific Amazon S3 buckets enforce geographic data boundaries. Amazon S3 Object Lock ensures immutability of stored data and logs, supporting regulatory retention and non-repudiation requirements. Pre-processing data within the same Region before invoking Amazon Bedrock ensures that inference and data handling do not cross continental boundaries.

Amazon Macie provides managed, automated data classification for sensitive data types such as PII and financial records, fulfilling the classification requirement without custom tooling.

AWS CloudTrail immutable logs provide comprehensive audit trails of all API calls, model invocations, and data access events, ensuring traceability of AI decision-making processes.

Option A violates residency rules through cross-Region inference. Option B does not provide data classification. Option D introduces high operational overhead and relies on manual compliance reporting.

Therefore, Option C is the most compliant, scalable, and operationally efficient solution for regionally governed GenAI workloads.

Option A is the correct solution because it uses native Amazon S3 metadata mechanisms to create a consistent, queryable, and model-friendly metadata framework with minimal complexity. S3 system metadata automatically records object creation and modification timestamps, providing reliable and consistent temporal context without additional processing.

Custom user-defined metadata is the appropriate mechanism for storing structured attributes such as author information. These key-value pairs are stored directly with the object, remain consistent across uploads, and can be accessed programmatically by downstream indexing or retrieval systems used by GenAI applications.

S3 object tags are ideal for domain classification because they are designed for lightweight categorization, filtering, and access control. Tags can be standardized across the organization to ensure consistent research domain labeling and can be consumed by search indexes or knowledge base ingestion pipelines without requiring access to the full document body.

Together, system metadata, user-defined metadata, and object tags provide a clean separation of concerns: timestamps for temporal context, metadata for authorship, and tags for classification. This structure allows foundation models to reason about document context (such as recency, domain relevance, and authorship) based on metadata alone, improving retrieval precision and reducing unnecessary token usage.

Options B, C, and D misuse features like Object Lock, access points, Storage Lens, or event notifications for purposes they were not designed for, adding complexity without improving metadata quality or model understanding.

Therefore, Option A best satisfies the metadata consistency, context enrichment, and low-overhead requirements for GenAI-driven document analysis.

Option C best meets the requirements by aligning with AWS best practices for data isolation, access control, and scalable GenAI retrieval. Implementing a separate Amazon Bedrock knowledge base for each hotel ensures strict separation of data and permissions. This approach naturally enforces hotel-level access control without requiring complex policy logic or post-query filtering.

A multi-account structure further strengthens security and governance by isolating each hotel’s data plane. AWS recommends account-level isolation for workloads with strong tenancy or compliance boundaries. Hotel staff can be granted access only to their hotel’s account and corresponding knowledge base, eliminating the risk of cross-hotel data exposure.

Direct data ingestion into each knowledge base enables near real-time updates for critical data such as room availability. For information that does not change frequently, scheduled synchronization reduces ingestion cost while maintaining accuracy. This hybrid ingestion model balances freshness and operational efficiency.

Because Amazon Bedrock Knowledge Bases are fully managed, performance remains consistent during peak usage periods without the company managing indexing, scaling, or retrieval infrastructure. Each knowledge base scales independently, preventing noisy-neighbor issues that could arise in a centralized design.

Option A and B rely on a centralized knowledge base, which increases policy complexity and introduces risk of misconfigured access controls. Option D adds unnecessary orchestration complexity and does not inherently solve real-time data freshness requirements.

Therefore, Option C provides the most secure, scalable, and operationally efficient solution for enhancing the PMS with Amazon Bedrock Knowledge Bases.

The correct combination is A, B, and D because these three options collectively satisfy the mandatory requirements for structured extraction, PII redaction before inference, regional human review, data residency, auditability, and high-scale availability with managed AWS services.

Option A is essential because Amazon Textract is the AWS-managed service designed to extract structured data from scanned documents such as forms, tables, and financial statements. Textract provides confidence scores, and Amazon Augmented AI (A2I) is purpose-built to route low-confidence extractions to human reviewers. Deploying Textract and A2I within the same Region ensures that the human review loop remains regionally constrained, meeting strict data residency requirements for applicants.

Option B satisfies the requirement to redact PII before inference by using AWS Lambda preprocessing. It also adds Amazon Bedrock guardrails to enforce safety controls on model outputs. Region-specific IAM roles ensure that only authorized principals in the correct Region can access the extracted data and invoke downstream services, strengthening residency enforcement and auditability.

Option D ensures that source documents are stored in Amazon S3 in the same Region as the applicant. Object metadata and tagging provide an auditable trail, supporting compliance reporting and traceability. S3 also provides the durability and availability needed to support 99.9% application availability as part of a well-architected pipeline.

Option C is not the correct approach for structured extraction from scans. Option E adds useful quality validation but is not strictly required to meet the stated requirements compared to A, B, and D. Option F is unrelated to the extraction/redaction/residency workflow requirements.

Therefore, A, B, and D are the best three choices to meet all stated requirements with minimal operational overhead.

Option B is the correct solution because Amazon Bedrock Prompt Management is purpose-built to manage, govern, and standardize prompt usage at scale across teams and Regions. It provides native version control, allowing teams to track prompt changes over time and ensure that only approved versions are used in production workflows.

Prompt Management supports approval workflows that align with enterprise governance requirements. Approval permissions can be enforced through IAM policies, ensuring that only authorized reviewers can approve or publish prompt versions. This removes the need for custom workflow engines or external storage systems, significantly reducing operational overhead.

Parameterized prompt templates enable consistent prompt structure while allowing controlled variation through defined variables. This ensures consistent quality standards and reduces prompt drift, which is critical when hundreds of prompts are reused across multiple applications and teams.

AWS CloudTrail integrates natively with Amazon Bedrock to provide immutable audit logs for prompt creation, updates, approvals, and usage. These detailed audit trails satisfy compliance requirements and allow security and governance teams to trace prompt activity across Regions and users.

Option A requires significant custom development to coordinate approvals and maintain state. Option C relies on general-purpose workflow services and manual versioning mechanisms that are error-prone and difficult to scale. Option D uses services not designed for large-scale GenAI prompt governance and introduces unnecessary complexity.

Therefore, Option B best meets the requirements for scalable, auditable, and low-overhead governance of AI-generated content using Amazon Bedrock.

Option B best fulfills all functional, scalability, and collaboration requirements by combining purpose-built AWS services with Amazon Bedrock capabilities. Amazon Bedrock Data Automation is designed to orchestrate large-scale, multimodal data processing pipelines and integrates naturally with foundation models for summarization and concept extraction. Using BDA to process document files ensures consistent preprocessing and model invocation at scale, which is essential for handling more than 10,000 sources per day with high concurrency.

Integrating Amazon Textract for PDFs enables accurate extraction of structured and unstructured text from scanned and digital documents, while Amazon Transcribe is the appropriate service for converting recorded videos into text for downstream semantic analysis. These services are optimized for their respective media types and feed clean, normalized inputs into Bedrock foundation models, improving the quality of contextual summaries.

Storing processed content in Amazon S3 with versioning enabled directly addresses the requirement for version control. S3 versioning provides immutable object history and rollback capabilities without additional complexity. Metadata storage in Amazon DynamoDB supports high-throughput, low-latency access patterns and scales automatically to handle peak upload concurrency.

Real-time collaboration is achieved through AWS AppSync GraphQL subscriptions combined with DynamoDB. AppSync enables real-time updates to connected clients whenever study materials are created or modified, making it well suited for collaborative editing and live synchronization. DynamoDB streams integrate seamlessly with AppSync to propagate changes efficiently.

The other options misuse services or fail to meet key requirements. Amazon SNS does not support collaborative state synchronization, Amazon DocumentDB is not optimized for versioned document storage, Amazon Neptune is unsuitable for document-centric workloads, and Amazon ElastiCache is not designed for durable storage or version control. Option B aligns with AWS best practices for scalable, multimodal generative AI systems built on Amazon Bedrock.

Option B best meets the requirements because it provides systematic diagnosis, measurable comparison, and historical traceability of prompt performance. By placing prompts under version control and testing them against complex clinical documents, the company can consistently reproduce issues, track regressions, and compare prompt behavior using quantifiable metrics such as factual accuracy, completeness, and consistency. Automated testing ensures scalability and repeatability, while version history preserves prompt evolution over time.

Option A lacks objective metrics and does not address complex documents. Option C focuses on live traffic experimentation but does not inherently diagnose prompt inconsistencies or preserve detailed historical evaluations. Option D adds medical entity analysis but introduces unnecessary service coupling and does not provide robust prompt version history or automated comparative benchmarking. Therefore, Option B is the most complete and disciplined solution.

Option B is the correct evaluation configuration because it enables end-to-end assessment of both retrieval and generation quality while supporting direct comparison of chunking strategies and foundation models. Amazon Bedrock evaluation jobs are designed to support RAG workflows by evaluating how well retrieved context supports accurate and high-quality model outputs.

A retrieve-and-generate evaluation job evaluates the complete RAG pipeline, not just retrieval. This is essential for medical information use cases, where both the relevance of retrieved content and the correctness of generated responses directly impact user safety and trust. Including multiple chunking strategies in the evaluation dataset allows side-by-side comparison under identical prompts and conditions.

Custom precision-at-k metrics measure how effectively the retrieval component surfaces relevant chunks, while an LLM-as-a-judge metric provides qualitative scoring of generated responses. Using a numeric scale enables consistent, repeatable evaluation and supports automated quality gates. Amazon Bedrock supports LLM-based evaluators to score dimensions such as accuracy, completeness, and relevance.

Using the same evaluator model to assess outputs from both FMs ensures consistent scoring and eliminates evaluator bias. This configuration allows the company to define quantitative thresholds that must be met before deployment, enabling automated promotion through CI/CD pipelines.

Option A evaluates retrieval only and cannot assess generation quality. Option C introduces manual review, which does not scale and delays deployment. Option D separates retrieval and generation evaluation, making it harder to correlate chunking strategies with final output quality.

Therefore, Option B best meets the requirements for systematic evaluation, comparison, and quality enforcement in an Amazon Bedrock–based RAG system.

Option B best satisfies the requirements while minimizing development effort by combining managed semantic search capabilities with fully managed foundation models. AWS Generative AI guidance describes semantic search as a vector-based retrieval pattern where both documents and user queries are embedded into a shared vector space. Similarity search (such as k-nearest neighbors) then retrieves results based on meaning rather than exact keywords.

Amazon OpenSearch Service natively supports vector indexing and k-NN search at scale. This makes it well suited for large datasets such as 20 million restaurants and 200 million reviews while still achieving sub-second latency for the majority of queries. Because OpenSearch is a distributed, managed service, it automatically scales during peak traffic periods and provides cost-effective performance compared with building and tuning custom vector search pipelines on relational databases.

Using Amazon Bedrock to generate embeddings significantly reduces development complexity. AWS manages the foundation models, eliminates the need for custom model hosting, and ensures consistency by using the same FM for both document embeddings and query embeddings. This aligns directly with AWS-recommended semantic search architectures and removes the need for model lifecycle management.

Hourly updates to restaurant data can be handled efficiently through incremental re-indexing in OpenSearch without disrupting query performance. This approach cleanly separates transactional data storage from search workloads, which is a best practice in AWS architectures.

Option A does not meet the semantic search requirement because keyword-based search cannot reliably interpret complex natural language intent. Option C introduces scalability and performance risks by running large-scale vector similarity searches inside PostgreSQL, which increases operational complexity. Option D adds unnecessary ingestion and abstraction layers intended for retrieval-augmented generation, not high-throughput semantic search.

Therefore, Option B provides the optimal balance of performance, scalability, data freshness, and minimal development effort using AWS Generative AI services.

Option D is the correct solution because Amazon Bedrock Knowledge Bases natively support reranking by using Amazon-managed reranker models, which are specifically designed to improve contextual relevance after the initial vector retrieval step. This approach directly addresses the root cause of the issue: semantically similar but contextually irrelevant documents being passed to the foundation model.

By enabling the reranking configuration within Amazon Bedrock Knowledge Bases, the application can automatically reorder retrieved documents based on deeper contextual understanding, such as regulatory scope, legal applicability, and semantic intent. This significantly improves retrieval precision, which reduces hallucinations and improves the factual accuracy of generated regulatory guidance.

Option D requires no additional infrastructure, no custom orchestration logic, and no separate model hosting. The reranking is fully managed by Amazon Bedrock and integrates seamlessly with the existing RetrieveAndGenerateStream workflow. This makes it the lowest operational overhead solution.

Option A introduces operational complexity by requiring a custom SageMaker endpoint, API Gateway routing, and model lifecycle management. Option B combines multiple unrelated services and introduces significant complexity without being purpose-built for RAG relevance ranking. Option C improves relevance but requires explicitly calling the Rerank API and modifying the application pipeline, which increases operational and integration effort compared to built-in reranking.

Therefore, Option D provides the most efficient, scalable, and AWS-recommended method to improve RAG retrieval quality while minimizing operational burden.

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.