220-1102 Operational Procedures Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✗

  Proceed with the update on all workstations and report the issue later

  Why it's wrong here

  Proceeding despite the known compatibility issue will propagate a defective software update to every workstation, potentially causing widespread application crashes and lost productivity. Reporting the issue only after the fact is reactive and violates the change management principle of assessing risks before implementation, not after. The CAB approved the change based on the original risk assessment, and the technician has discovered new information that invalidates that approval basis.

• ✓

  Stop the change and notify the CAB

  Why this is correct

  Halting the implementation and notifying the CAB is the correct action because the technician has uncovered a risk not present in the original change request. Change management policy dictates that any unexpected issue during implementation immediately suspends the change and triggers a formal review by the CAB, which has the authority to approve, reject, or modify the rollout plan. This preserves the change control audit trail, prevents unauthorized deviation, and allows time to assess impact and determine a safe path forward.

• ✗

  Skip the update on the affected department's workstations and continue elsewhere

  Why it's wrong here

  Skipping only the affected department's workstations creates two divergent system states, leading to configuration drift, and leaves a group of machines non-compliant with the approved baseline. This unilateral modification of the deployment plan is not authorized under change management governance, which requires any scope change to go back through the CAB. While it limits immediate impact, it bypasses the decision-making body that owns the risk and does not resolve the underlying compatibility issue.

• ✗

  Apply the update and then reinstall the application

  Why it's wrong here

  Applying the update and then reinstalling the application gambles on post-hoc remediation without a controlled rollback strategy, risking data loss, corrupted configurations, and further compatibility failures. This approach is dangerous because the reinstallation may introduce its own variables, and the CAB has not evaluated this remedial step. The proper course is to pause the change and let the CAB decide whether to test, defer, or implement a different version, rather than forcing an incompatible update through.

Go deeper

Related to this question