mediumMultiple ChoiceObjective-mapped
FC0-U71 Practice Question: A software team is developing a mobile payment…
A software team is developing a mobile payment application using the waterfall model. They have completed the requirements, design, and implementation phases. During system testing, testers discover that the app crashes when processing transactions over $10,000. Further investigation reveals that the design specification for the transaction module did not account for large amounts, causing an overflow error. The project manager holds a meeting to decide the next steps. The team estimates that fixing the issue will require redesigning the transaction module, updating the code, and retesting, which will add two weeks to the schedule. The client's contract includes a penalty for late delivery but also a clause requiring the software to be free of critical defects. The team has already used most of the contingency time. What is the BEST course of action?
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
✓
Submit a formal change request to the change control board to approve a redesign of the transaction module.
Submitting a formal change request follows the waterfall process and protects the team from blame, while addressing a critical defect.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Switch to an agile methodology immediately and iterate on the fix without formal approval.
Why it's wrong here
Switching methodologies mid-project is disruptive and may not be feasible; the team should follow the existing process.
- ✓
Submit a formal change request to the change control board to approve a redesign of the transaction module.
Why this is correct
This follows the waterfall process and addresses the defect properly, even if it delays the project.
- ✗
Ignore the issue because only a few transactions exceed $10,000, and hope testers overlook it.
Why it's wrong here
Ignoring a known critical defect is unethical and could lead to severe consequences.
- ✗
Continue with current implementation and patch the crash after release as a maintenance update.
Why it's wrong here
A critical defect like a crash on large transactions could cause customer loss and legal issues; patching later is risky.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This FC0-U71 question is part of Courseiva's 988-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This FC0-U71 practice question is part of Courseiva's free CompTIA 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 FC0-U71 exam.