CIS-DF Questions and Answers

In the CSDM Walk stage, an organization has moved beyond basic data hygiene (Crawl) and has established foundational service models, especially Business Services and their relationships to underlying technical components. One of the most important and immediate benefits of reaching this stage is the ability to perform reliable impact analysis across ITSM processes.

When Business Services are correctly defined and related to Application Services, applications, and infrastructure CIs, the CMDB becomes a decision-support system rather than just a data repository. This enables impact assessments for Incident, Problem, and Change Management, which is exactly what Option C describes. For example, when an incident is logged against a CI, ServiceNow can automatically determine which Business Services are impacted and who the affected stakeholders are. Similarly, during Change Management, planners can assess downstream risk by identifying which business-facing services could be disrupted.

Option A is more aligned with advanced operational governance and support model optimization, which typically appears later as organizations mature toward the Run stage. Option B relates to Application Portfolio Management (APM) acceleration, which benefits more from accurate application ownership and lifecycle data rather than core Walk-stage service modeling.

Therefore, the correct and CSDM-aligned benefit at the Walk stage is enabling impact assessments for incident, problem, and change on Business Services, making Option C the verified answer.

In the Common Service Data Model (CSDM), the Incident form is designed to capture operational impact and enable effective incident routing, prioritization, and communication. To achieve this, CSDM prescribes using classes that represent how services are delivered and consumed, not how they are planned or governed.

Application Service (Option A) is an appropriate class on the Incident form because it represents the technical service that is running in production and is directly impacted during an incident. Application Services are service-mapped, relate to underlying infrastructure, and support impact analysis, root cause investigation, and automated assignment. This makes them ideal for associating incidents with technical outages or degradations.

Service Offering (Option C) is also appropriate because it represents how a service is consumed by users or business units. Service Offerings allow Incident Management to understand who is affected, enable targeted communications, and support SLA/OLA alignment. For example, an email service offering for a specific department clearly identifies the impacted consumer group.

Business Application (Option B) is not recommended on the Incident form. Business Applications are logical representations used for portfolio, ownership, and governance purposes, not day-to-day operational incident handling. Using them directly on incidents can reduce precision and automation.

Service Portfolio (Option D) is a strategic construct used for service lifecycle management and is never associated with operational incidents.

Therefore, according to CSDM best practices, the correct classes used on the Incident form are Application Service and Service Offering, making Options A and C the correct answers.

The CMDB Data Manager is the ServiceNow capability responsible for generating actionable governance tasks and assigning them to CI class owners and data stewards. These tasks appear directly in the “My Work” tab within the CMDB Workspace, enabling proactive and role-based CMDB governance.

CMDB Data Manager focuses on data lifecycle management, including archival, retirement, and cleanup of CIs based on defined policies. When lifecycle rules or retention thresholds are met—or when human validation is required—the Data Manager creates tasks to prompt responsible owners to take action. This ensures that CMDB data remains accurate, compliant, and lean over time.

The CMDB Health Dashboard (Option C) provides visibility into health metrics such as completeness, correctness, and compliance, but it does not generate tasks. Similarly, De-duplication templates (Option A) support duplicate identification and remediation workflows, but they do not create ongoing governance tasks in the CMDB Workspace.

By surfacing tasks in “My Work,” CMDB Data Manager operationalizes governance and embeds accountability into daily workflows, which is a key principle of CMDB Data Foundations.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B – CMDB Data Manager.

Data Foundations strongly encourages using out-of-box synchronization mechanisms rather than custom scripting whenever possible, to reduce technical debt and improve upgrade safety. In this scenario, endpoint data is being ingested into the CI record, and the Asset team needs the corresponding Asset record kept in sync automatically for their asset management processes.

The recommended approach is to use Asset CI Field Mapping, which is designed specifically to map and synchronize fields between an Asset and its related CI. Creating or updating a mapping rule for “Assigned to” allows the platform to replicate the value in a controlled, supportable way without writing scripts. This approach aligns with best practices: standard configuration, clear governance, and minimal custom code.

Option B (a scripted business rule) can work technically, but it introduces maintenance risk, testing overhead, and potential upgrade fragility—exactly the kind of technical debt Data Foundations warns against when an OOTB capability exists. Option A (dot-walking) changes the user experience and does not truly populate the Asset field; it only displays a derived value and may not meet Asset team needs for reporting, exports, integrations, or lifecycle workflows that expect the Asset field to be set. Therefore, the best automated and best-practice solution is Asset CI Field Mapping.

This question hinges on understanding class-specific Dynamic Reconciliation Rules in CMDB 360 / Multisource CMDB within ServiceNow.

Although two different dynamic rules are configured, the rule applied depends on the CI class being evaluated:

For the Server class, the configured rule is Largest value for the RAM attribute.

For the Windows Server class, the rule Most reported would apply—but only if the CI were evaluated as a Windows Server.

The question explicitly asks for the resulting RAM value for a Server CI, not a Windows Server CI. Therefore, the Largest value rule governs the outcome.

Looking at the multisource values:

2,048 MB (LANDesk)

4,096 MB (Tivoli)

4,096 MB (ServiceNow)

8,192 MB (Altiris)

Under the Largest value dynamic reconciliation rule, the IRE selects the maximum numeric value, regardless of how frequently it is reported or which source provided it.

The Most reported logic (which would result in 4,096 MB) does not apply here because that rule is configured for a different class (Windows Server).

This scenario illustrates an important CMDB 360 principle: Dynamic reconciliation is evaluated per class, and child-class rules do not override parent-class rules unless the CI is actually classified under that child class.

When building advanced CMDB queries using CMDB Query Builder in ServiceNow, the correct approach is to model CI scope, relationships, and task context explicitly on the canvas.

To limit results to databases in a specific location, the administrator must filter the Database CI node by the Location attribute. Therefore, Option C is required to scope the query to Database CIs where Location = Seattle.

To include Incidents related to those databases, the Incident table must be added from the Non-CMDB Tables list and linked through the task_ci relationship. This is exactly what Option A provides. CMDB Query Builder separates CMDB tables (CIs) from task and transactional tables, so incidents must be explicitly added from the Non-CMDB section.

Option B is incorrect because property columns on Application Services do not scope databases or incidents. Option D is unnecessary because relationship depth alone does not include non-CMDB task data and does not filter by location.

Thus, the correct actions are A (add Incident table) and C (filter Database by location).

In ServiceNow, Service Graph Connectors deliver data ingestion patterns using protected, upgrade-safe artifacts, including script transforms. When a customer customizes a script transform provided by a Service Graph Connector, ServiceNow follows standard update set and upgrade behavior to protect customer customizations.

During a subsequent upgrade, if the out-of-box (default) script transform definition changes, ServiceNow does not overwrite the customized version. Instead, the platform records a skipped change, indicating that an update was available but intentionally not applied due to a local customization. This ensures customer-specific logic is preserved while still maintaining transparency about what changed in the newer release.

Option A is incorrect because upgrades do not halt due to customized transforms. Option C is also incorrect because Service Graph Connector upgrades proceed normally; they do not refuse to start because of customizations.

This behavior aligns with Data Foundations best practices: avoid modifying OOTB content when possible, but when customization is necessary, ensure it is protected during upgrades. Administrators should review skipped changes after upgrades to decide whether to manually adopt new OOTB logic.

Therefore, the correct answer is B – A skipped change is created and no change is made to the script transform definition.

In ServiceNow, the CMDB Health Dashboard does not calculate health scores in real time by default. Instead, health scores are generated and refreshed by scheduled calculation jobs that evaluate CI data against defined health rules across the dimensions of completeness, correctness, and compliance.

To generate and maintain CMDB health scores, the scheduled jobs for CMDB Health must be active. These jobs periodically scan the CMDB, apply health rules (for example, required attributes populated, lifecycle status compliance, certification results), and calculate scores that are displayed on the dashboard and scorecards. Without these scheduled jobs running, the dashboard cannot produce current or meaningful health metrics.

Option B is incorrect because CMDB health scoring is not automatic or real-time; it depends on scheduled processing. Option C is also incorrect because CMDB Health is part of the core CMDB/Data Foundations capability in ServiceNow and does not require a separate “CMDB health calculation” plugin to be installed in modern implementations.

Activating and maintaining these scheduled jobs ensures that health scores remain accurate, trendable over time, and useful for governance decisions. This is a foundational requirement for using the CMDB Health Dashboard as a data quality improvement tool.

Therefore, the correct answer is A – The scheduled jobs for the CMDB Health Dashboard must be activated.

Service Graph Connectors are a key Data Foundations ingestion capability in ServiceNow. They provide out-of-the-box, upgrade-safe integrations that ingest data into the CMDB using the Identification and Reconciliation Engine (IRE), ensuring data quality and source governance.

Two primary categories of Service Graph Connectors are:

Cloud (Option A): These connectors integrate with major cloud providers and platforms (such as AWS, Azure, and GCP) to ingest infrastructure, platform, and service data into the CMDB. They are essential for managing hybrid and multi-cloud environments and maintaining accurate cloud CI relationships.

Observability (Option B): These connectors integrate with monitoring and observability tools (such as APM, infrastructure monitoring, and telemetry platforms). They provide near-real-time operational data that enriches CI records and supports incident correlation, impact analysis, and service health insights.

Option C (DevOps) is incorrect because DevOps integrations are typically handled through CI/CD tools and workflow integrations rather than Service Graph Connectors. Option D (Workflow Automation) is unrelated; Service Graph Connectors focus on data ingestion, not process orchestration.

Therefore, the correct connector categories are Cloud and Observability, making Options A and B the correct answers.

Within the Common Service Data Model (CSDM), information objects are used to represent non-CI data entities that provide important business or governance context but are not configuration items themselves. These objects are especially important when extending service visibility beyond pure infrastructure and application relationships.

The use case described in Option A—understanding asset lifecycle compliance in a Business Application context—explicitly requires information objects. Asset lifecycle data (such as financial state, depreciation, warranty, and compliance milestones) is typically managed in IT Asset Management (ITAM) and must be associated to Business Applications without converting every asset-related data point into a CI. Information objects enable this linkage while maintaining clean CMDB boundaries.

Option B focuses on event-to-incident automation, which relies on CIs, technical services, and operational relationships, not information objects. Option C (proactive case management) is primarily a CSM and service offering use case. Option D (SecOps risk context) relies on application services and business application relationships, not information objects. Option E (business service impact) is addressed through service modeling and service mapping, again without requiring information objects.

Information objects are introduced as organizations mature and need to integrate governance, financial, or compliance data with service and application models—making asset lifecycle compliance the correct match.

Therefore, the correct answer is A.

In Data Foundations, “Insight” includes measuring CMDB health in ways that are actionable—so teams can identify where data is degrading and prioritize remediation. Stale CIs (records that are no longer current, not updated, or no longer exist in the environment) are a common source of CMDB risk: they distort reporting, mislead impact analysis, and create noise for operational processes. Reducing staleness supports higher trust in the CMDB and better decision-making.

On the CMDB Health Dashboard, stale CI concerns align most closely with Compliance because staleness is fundamentally about whether CIs continue to meet defined governance expectations over time—such as update frequency, lifecycle status controls, and adherence to rules that indicate whether records are still valid. Compliance scorecards typically highlight rule-based adherence to standards (for example, policies or health rules indicating that certain CI types must be recently updated or must not exceed staleness thresholds). This makes Compliance the right place to monitor and improve staleness.

By contrast, Completeness focuses on whether required attributes are populated (for example, owner, environment, support group). Correctness focuses on whether values are accurate and relationships make sense. While stale records can indirectly affect correctness, the dashboard tracking of “stale” is primarily treated as a governance adherence issue—whether the CMDB is being maintained according to lifecycle and freshness expectations—therefore it is surfaced through the Compliance scorecard.

Within the CMDB class dictionary in ServiceNow, attributes can be inherited from parent classes or defined directly on a specific class. To identify attributes created specifically for the Windows Server class, administrators must use the Added tab.

The Added tab displays attributes that are unique to the selected class and not inherited from parent classes (such as Server or Computer). This is essential for understanding class-specific extensions—like Windows-only configuration details—that were introduced to support platform requirements, discovery enhancements, or organizational needs.

The All tab shows every attribute available to the class, including inherited and added attributes, which makes it difficult to isolate class-specific additions. The Child tab focuses on attributes inherited by subclasses, not attributes introduced at the current class level. The Derived tab shows attributes calculated or derived from other data, not necessarily those created specifically for the class.

Using the Added tab supports best practices for configuration transparency, impact analysis during upgrades, and governance—especially important in Data Foundations to minimize unnecessary customization and maintain upgrade-safe designs.

Therefore, the correct answer is B – Added.

In a mature CMDB implementation within ServiceNow, CI operational attributes are leveraged to automate ITSM workflows. One of the most important outcomes of accurate Configuration Management is automatic incident routing.

When a CI is selected on an Incident record, ServiceNow evaluates the CI’s Support Group attribute. If populated correctly, the platform automatically copies this value into the Assignment Group field on the Incident. This ensures incidents are routed to the correct resolver group without manual triage, reducing mean time to resolution (MTTR).

The Support Group is a CI attribute, not an incident field that drives workflow directly. The Assignment Group is the operational field used by Incident Management to assign ownership. Managed by Group, Approval Group, and Change Group are used in other governance and lifecycle contexts and are not auto-populated during incident creation.

This behavior is a direct result of Data Foundations best practices: maintaining accurate CI-to-support-group relationships to enable automation and consistency across ITSM processes.

Therefore, the correct answer is C – Assignment Group.

In Data Foundations, a low “Unique Locations” result indicates the CMDB contains duplicate Location records (or inconsistent location usage) that reduce data reliability for operational reporting and service analytics. This sits under “Insight” because the dashboard is highlighting a measurable quality issue, and the playbook provides a structured remediation path to restore confidence.

The recommended playbook-aligned process is to review the duplicate locations, determine which one is correct per the organization’s naming and data standards, then re-point dependent records (CIs) to the correct Location before removing the duplicate. That sequence is essential: if you delete a duplicate location without first updating related CIs, you risk leaving CIs with missing/invalid location references, creating new completeness and correctness issues.

Option C matches best practice: validate which location record should remain, update all affected CIs (and any other dependent records) to use the correct location, and then delete (or retire/merge, depending on process controls) the duplicate record. Option B is risky because it skips validation and dependency updates. Option D defeats the purpose of “Unique Locations” by allowing ongoing inconsistency. Option A is not the best fit because “Duplicate CI Remediator” is oriented toward CI duplicates; Location is typically a reference/organization data domain and is handled through the specific remediation steps for that data set. Therefore, C is the recommended process.

CMDB 360 / Multisource CMDB extends the standard IRE by enabling Dynamic Reconciliation Rules, which determine attribute values dynamically based on incoming data patterns rather than fixed source priority.

Within the Create Reconciliation Rule wizard, two supported dynamic rule types are:

Most Reported (Option B): selects the attribute value that is reported most frequently across all sources. This is useful when multiple sources contribute data and consensus is a strong indicator of correctness.

Last Updated (Option C): selects the most recently updated value, which is useful for rapidly changing attributes such as IP address or operational state.

Option A (Smallest Value) and Option D (Last Created) are not supported dynamic reconciliation rule types in ServiceNow.

Dynamic reconciliation rules are particularly valuable in complex, multisource environments where rigid source precedence is insufficient and data confidence must be inferred.

Therefore, the correct answers are B – Most Reported and C – Last Updated.

In Data Foundations, “Insight” focuses on turning configuration data into actionable visibility. CMDB 360 (often associated with Multisource CMDB capabilities) provides a guided experience in CMDB Workspace for exploring CI data and running queries across sources. Within this experience, Saved Queries are managed directly under the CMDB 360 area of CMDB Workspace because they are part of the CMDB 360 query-and-analysis workflow.

A CMDB 360 Saved Query is not the same as a generic CMDB Query Builder query created from classic navigation modules. The CMDB 360 experience typically uses a tile/window approach where users can view existing saved queries, create new queries, modify them, and run them to retrieve CMDB 360 data aligned to multisource reporting and analysis. Keeping saved queries on the CMDB 360 tab makes them easy to discover and reuse for repeatable insights (for example, coverage and source comparisons, CI data quality checks by source, and targeted investigation of records).

The Insights tab in CMDB Workspace is generally used to understand adoption and health-related insights about CMDB features, not as the primary location for creating CMDB 360 multisource saved queries. “Coverage” is a specific lens/view and does not represent the saved-query creation workspace. “CMDB Query Builder” is a related capability, but the question explicitly asks where CMDB 360/Multisource Saved Queries are viewed and created in CMDB Workspace, which is the Saved queries window on the CMDB 360 tab.

In CSDM, Technology Services (and their Service Offerings) represent how technical capabilities are delivered and consumed by internal teams. When a server team requests a catalog item for infrastructure services (e.g., VM provisioning, storage, OS builds), the role responsible for initiating the request and defining requirements is the Technology Service Owner.

Technology Service Owners understand the operational capabilities, constraints, SLAs, and fulfillment workflows required to deliver infrastructure services. They define catalog requirements such as options, approvals, fulfillment tasks, and guardrails—ensuring the request aligns with standardization, security, and operational readiness.

Application Service Owners focus on how applications are delivered and supported, not on defining infrastructure catalog items. Enterprise Architects provide standards and guidance but do not initiate or define catalog request requirements.

Thus, the correct role is B – Technology Service Owners.

Managing CI classes and Principal Class designation is a schema-level CMDB activity that directly impacts how CIs appear in ITSM processes such as Incident, Change, and Problem. In ServiceNow, these activities require specific administrative privileges to ensure governance, security, and upgrade safety.

The sn_cmdb_admin role is required because it provides administrative access to CMDB structures, including CI class hierarchy management, Principal Class configuration, and overall CMDB governance. Without this role, users cannot add, remove, or govern CI classes effectively.

The personalize_dictionary role is also required because adding or removing CI classes involves dictionary-level changes. CI classes are implemented as tables that extend the CMDB schema, and modifying the Principal Class filter relies on dictionary metadata. This role grants permission to create, modify, or remove class definitions safely.

The sn_csdm_admin role focuses on managing CSDM constructs (domains, services, lifecycle alignment) but does not grant dictionary or schema modification rights. The cmdb_query_builder role is used only for querying and reporting and does not allow structural changes.

Therefore, the two required roles are personalize.dictionary and sn_cmdb_admin, making Options A and B correct.

The CMDB plays a critical role in security operations by providing trusted, structured insight into the organization’s IT landscape. When built according to Data Foundations principles—accurate discovery, governed relationships, and alignment to CSDM—the CMDB becomes an essential enabler for security incident response and vulnerability management.

Option D is correct because the CMDB allows security teams to identify exactly which IT infrastructure components are affected by a vulnerability. By correlating vulnerability scan results with configuration items (CIs), security teams can determine whether an issue exists on a server, application, cloud resource, or network device—and understand where that CI sits within the broader service context. This eliminates blind spots and reduces time spent investigating unknown or unmanaged assets.

Option A is also correct because the CMDB supports assessment and remediation activities during security incidents. Once affected CIs are identified, the CMDB provides ownership, support group, environment, and service relationships. This enables security teams to quickly route remediation tasks to the correct resolver groups, assess business impact, and prioritize response based on service criticality. While the CMDB does not perform remediation itself, it enables informed and coordinated action.

Option B is incorrect because vulnerabilities are not auto-resolved by the CMDB; remediation requires human decision-making and execution through security, patching, or change processes. Option C, while related to governance and compliance use cases, is more aligned with GRC and audit functions rather than day-to-day security operations, making it less appropriate for this question.

In summary, the CMDB’s primary value in security operations is visibility and actionable insight, enabling faster identification, assessment, and response to security threats.

Service Mapping (Top-down) → Recommended for mission-critical application services that require a precise approach using patterns

Tag-Based → Best fit to map cloud-native, container-based, or virtual machine environments

Service Mapping (Connection Suggestions) → Ideal for custom-built applications and leverages application fingerprinting to generate service maps in a timely manner

Dynamic CI Group → Ideal for small application services that can be easily grouped using filters and CMDB queries

In Data Foundations (CMDB + CSDM), an Application Service should be created using an approach that balances accuracy, speed, and maintainability, because the service map becomes the foundation for impact analysis, service visibility, and operational workflows.

Service Mapping (Top-down) is best for mission-critical services because it uses structured entry points and patterns to precisely discover infrastructure, dependencies, and communication paths. This produces high-fidelity maps suitable for strict governance, controlled change, and reliable outage impact analysis.

Tag-Based mapping is best for cloud-native and dynamic environments (containers, elastic virtual machines, and cloud resources) because tags/labels are the most stable identifiers in rapidly changing estates. It aligns well with modern cloud governance where ownership, environment, and service affiliation are expressed through standardized tagging strategies.

Service Mapping (Connection Suggestions) fits custom-built applications because it leverages observed connection data and application fingerprinting to propose likely dependencies. This accelerates service map creation when traditional pattern-first modeling would take longer, helping teams reach usable service visibility faster while still allowing validation and refinement.

Dynamic CI Group is ideal for smaller services where a full discovered map may be unnecessary. It groups CIs using filters and CMDB queries, providing a lightweight way to define “what’s in the service” for reporting, ownership, and basic impact without heavy mapping overhead.

In Data Foundations, “Insight” includes using dashboards and guided remediation to identify and fix issues that degrade CMDB trust. Missing serial numbers on Hardware CIs is a high-risk data quality issue because serial number is commonly used as a key identifier for uniqueness. When it is missing, identification and reconciliation become less reliable, increasing the likelihood of duplicate CI creation from Discovery, integrations, or manual entry.

ServiceNow provides structured, prescriptive guidance through the CMDB Data Foundations Dashboard Playbooks. These playbooks are designed specifically to help administrators move from a dashboard finding (for example, low uniqueness or incomplete key identifiers) to a repeatable remediation approach. They typically guide you to: confirm the scope of impacted CI classes, validate which sources should populate serial number (Discovery, integrations, import sets, vendor feeds), verify mapping and transformation logic, and then remediate existing records while putting controls in place to prevent recurrence.

Option B focuses on CMDB Health Dashboard guidance, which is helpful for health scoring and rules, but the question explicitly references a data foundations-type remediation need tied to data completeness of key identifiers and timely resolution using structured guidelines. Options A and D are CSDM-focused and do not directly address CI identifier population and duplication risk in the CMDB ingestion context. Therefore, the structured guidelines to troubleshoot and resolve missing serial numbers in a Data Foundations context are the CMDB Data Foundations Dashboard Playbooks.

In ServiceNow, validating whether Configuration Items (CIs) still exist is a core CMDB governance activity. Over time, environments change rapidly—servers are decommissioned, cloud resources are torn down, and applications are replaced. If existence validation is not enforced, the CMDB quickly fills with obsolete or “ghost” CIs.

Attestation policies are specifically designed to address this need. An attestation policy automatically generates and assigns tasks to responsible users or groups, asking them to confirm that a CI still exists and is still relevant. This process focuses on acknowledgment rather than deep data validation, making it lightweight and scalable across large CMDBs.

Certification policies (Option A) are used when specific attributes must be validated, such as lifecycle status, support group, or environment. While important for data correctness, certification is not intended solely to confirm CI existence. Delete (Option B) and Retire (Option C) policies are lifecycle actions that remove or transition records, but they do not validate existence before taking action.

Attestation integrates cleanly with CMDB Workspace, assigns tasks automatically, and supports auditability—ensuring accountability for CI ownership. This makes it the correct and Data Foundations–aligned policy type for validating CI existence.

Therefore, Option D – Attestation is the correct answer.

Managing CMDB data volume is a key Data Foundations governance objective. Over time, CMDBs naturally accumulate retired, obsolete, or decommissioned CIs. If these records are not properly managed, they degrade CMDB performance, reduce reporting accuracy, and negatively impact discovery reconciliation and health scores.

Archive Policies are the mechanism designed to address this challenge. They define when CI records should be archived or deleted based on lifecycle state, age, or retention requirements. By automating archival and cleanup, archive policies ensure that only relevant, active CIs remain in the operational CMDB, keeping data volume manageable and performant.

Business Rules (Option A) are used to enforce logic during record creation or updates, not for long-term data volume control. Scheduled Jobs (Option B) may execute tasks, but without archive policies they have no governance logic to determine what should be removed or retained.

Archive policies work in conjunction with CMDB Data Manager to enforce lifecycle-based retention and cleanup, making them the correct and verified answer.

Therefore, Option C – Archive Policies is correct.