Requirements Traceability Matrix for CAPM
During a requirements validation session, the project sponsor questions whether a particular requirement aligns with the business case. The business analyst recalls that the requirement originated from a regulatory compliance need. What should the BA do to resolve the concern?
Quick Answer
The correct answer is to show the sponsor the traceability link to the regulatory requirement. This is because a requirements traceability matrix (RTM) is designed to map each requirement back to its origin, whether a business objective, stakeholder need, or external driver like a regulation. By presenting the traceability link, the business analyst provides objective, documented evidence that directly connects the requirement to a valid compliance need, resolving the sponsor’s concern without subjective debate. On the CAPM exam, this scenario tests your understanding of how traceability supports requirements validation and stakeholder alignment—a common trap is assuming the BA should re-justify the requirement verbally or seek approval from another stakeholder. Instead, the RTM serves as the single source of truth for requirement origins. Memory tip: “Trace it to place it”—if a requirement’s source is questioned, trace it back to its documented origin in the matrix.
⚠ Common exam trap
Many candidates assume the sponsor's authority means the requirement should be removed or deferred, but the CAPM exam tests the use of traceability as an objective tool to validate requirements against their source, not subjective opinion.
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
✓
Show the sponsor the traceability link to the regulatory requirement.
The business analyst (BA) should use the traceability link to demonstrate how the requirement directly maps to a regulatory compliance need, which is a valid justification within the business case. Traceability ensures that every requirement is linked back to a business objective or external driver, such as a regulation, and provides objective evidence to resolve the sponsor's concern without subjective debate.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Ignore the sponsor's comment and proceed with the requirement as documented.
Why it's wrong here
Proceeding without responding leaves the sponsor's alignment concern unaddressed, so validation ends without confirming the requirement traces to the regulatory need. It is tempting because the requirement is already documented, and would be correct where the sponsor's comment is out of scope for the session.
- ✓
Show the sponsor the traceability link to the regulatory requirement.
Why this is correct
Traceability links each requirement to its originating source, so the regulatory compliance origin is documented and auditable. Showing the sponsor that link demonstrates the requirement's mandatory external driver, resolving the alignment concern with evidence rather than opinion.
- ✗
Remove the requirement to address the sponsor's concern.
Why it's wrong here
Deleting the requirement discards a regulatory compliance obligation to satisfy the sponsor, creating a compliance gap rather than addressing the alignment question. It is tempting because removal resolves the immediate objection, and would be correct only where the requirement genuinely lacks any regulatory or business basis.
- ✗
Postpone the discussion until the next stakeholder meeting.
Why it's wrong here
Deferring leaves the sponsor's business-case concern unresolved during validation, so the requirement's regulatory justification is not documented and the session closes without agreement. It is tempting because postponement suits low-priority queries, and would be correct where the concern needs data unavailable at the session.
Visual reference
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 451 original CAPM 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 →
Same concept, more angles
1 more way this is tested on CAPM
These questions test the same concept from different angles. Work through them to make sure you can recognise it however the exam phrases it.
Variation 1. During requirements gathering, the BA wants to ensure that each requirement can be traced back to its origin. Which tool is best for this purpose?
easy- ✓ A.Requirements traceability matrix
- B.Business process model
- C.Use case diagram
- D.Stakeholder map
Why A: A Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) is specifically designed to trace each requirement back to its origin (e.g., stakeholder, business goal) and forward to its implementation and testing. It ensures that all requirements are accounted for and helps manage changes. Other tools like business process models, use case diagrams, and stakeholder maps do not provide this direct traceability.
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
This CAPM practice question is part of Courseiva's free PMI 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 CAPM exam.