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.
CAPM Business Analysis Frameworks Practice Question
This CAPM practice question tests your understanding of business analysis frameworks. Read the scenario carefully and evaluate each option against the stated constraints before committing to an answer. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.
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?
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.
Option B is correct because 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.
Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
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
This undermines the validation process and stakeholder engagement.
✓
Show the sponsor the traceability link to the regulatory requirement.
Why this is correct
Tracing back to the source clarifies the necessity and aligns with the business case.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
✗
Remove the requirement to address the sponsor's concern.
Why it's wrong here
This could violate regulatory compliance and introduce risk.
✗
Postpone the discussion until the next stakeholder meeting.
Why it's wrong here
Delaying may not resolve the underlying concern and could impact timelines.
Common exam traps
Common exam trap: answer the scenario, not the keyword
The trap here is that candidates may 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.
Detailed technical explanation
How to think about this question
In business analysis, a traceability matrix links requirements to their sources (e.g., business case, regulatory standards like GDPR or SOX) and downstream artifacts (e.g., test cases). During validation, the BA uses this matrix to show the 'parent-child' relationship, proving the requirement's origin and necessity. In a real-world scenario, if a sponsor questions a requirement for a data encryption feature, the BA would point to the traceability link showing it stems from a PCI DSS compliance mandate, not a discretionary business goal.
KKey Concepts to Remember
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Find the constraint that changes the correct option.
Eliminate answers that are true in general but not in this case.
TExam Day Tips
→Watch for words such as best, first, most likely and least administrative effort.
→Review why wrong options are wrong, not only why the correct option is correct.
Key takeaway
Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Real-world example
How this comes up in practice
A small business has 20 workstations on the 192.168.1.0/24 network and one public IP from its ISP. The router uses PAT (NAT overload) so all 20 devices share one public address using different source ports. NAT questions test whether you understand the four address terms and which direction each translation applies.
What to study next
Got this wrong? Here's your next step.
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
Business Analysis Frameworks — This question tests Business Analysis Frameworks — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
What is the correct answer to this question?
The correct answer is: Show the sponsor the traceability link to the regulatory requirement. — Option B is correct because 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.
What should I do if I get this CAPM question wrong?
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
What is the key concept behind this question?
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
About these practice questions
Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
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: Option B is correct because a requirements traceability matrix tracks the origin and linkage of each requirement. Option A is incorrect because it models processes. Option C is incorrect because use case diagrams show interactions. Option D is incorrect because stakeholder map shows relationships.
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
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.
Question Discussion
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
Sign in to join the discussion.