CCAR-P Practice Question: Stakeholder Communication and Lifecycle Management
You are preparing a go-live readiness review for a Claude-powered advisory assistant used by field staff. The steering committee wants assurance that operational ownership is clear before launch. Which two artifacts are most essential to demonstrate that the lifecycle handover from project to operations is complete? (Choose two.)
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap here is accepting development artifacts such as prompt archives or attendee lists as readiness evidence, when handover requires explicit ownership and operational procedures.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
A documented service ownership agreement naming the accountable team, support hours, and service level objectives.
A complete handover requires both a named owner and the operational procedures that owner will follow. The service ownership agreement establishes accountability, support hours, and service level objectives, while the signed runbook documents incident response, escalation, and maintenance. Together they give the steering committee confidence that the assistant will be sustained after the project team transitions away, rather than drifting without ownership or support coverage.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
A list of all stakeholders who attended the project kickoff meeting.
Why it's wrong here
Kickoff attendance records are historical project artifacts, not evidence of operational readiness. Stakeholders at kickoff may have changed roles, and attendance implies no ongoing responsibility. The steering committee needs current, forward-looking commitments about who operates the service and under what terms, so a historical attendee list adds no assurance about post-launch support, monitoring, or accountability.
- ✓
A documented service ownership agreement naming the accountable team, support hours, and service level objectives.
Why this is correct
Naming the accountable team, support windows, and service level objectives converts vague intent into enforceable commitments. It tells the steering committee exactly who answers for availability, quality, and response times after launch, and it gives operations a mandate to staff and monitor the service. This artifact is the clearest evidence that the lifecycle handover is complete and that ownership will not lapse.
- ✗
A complete archive of every prompt version ever tested during development.
Why it's wrong here
Historical prompt archives are useful for traceability and audits, but they do not demonstrate operational ownership. Keeping every experimental version also creates confusion about which prompt is authoritative in production. The readiness question is who will operate and maintain the service, not what was tried during development. An archive can support a runbook, but it cannot substitute for documented ownership and support commitments.
- ✓
A signed operations runbook covering incident response, escalation paths, and routine maintenance tasks.
Why this is correct
A signed runbook proves that the receiving operations team has accepted responsibility for the service. It documents how to detect and respond to incidents, who to escalate to, and what routine maintenance such as prompt updates or evaluation reruns must occur. Without this acceptance, the project team remains the de facto owner after launch, and the steering committee has no evidence that support will continue once the delivery team disbands.
- ✗
A slide deck summarizing the assistant's key features for the marketing team.
Why it's wrong here
A marketing overview communicates capabilities to external or internal audiences but says nothing about operational accountability. It does not identify who fixes incidents, how quality is monitored, or what service levels apply. Presenting it as readiness evidence would leave the steering committee without confirmation that support and maintenance are staffed, which is the core concern of a go-live handover review.
About these practice questions
One of 262 original CCAR-P practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official Anthropic exam blueprint
This CCAR-P practice question is part of Courseiva's free Anthropic certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CCAR-P exam.