Amazon Web Services Updated AIP-C01 Exam Questions and Answers by verity

Option D best satisfies all functional, performance, and governance requirements while minimizing architectural complexity. The requirement explicitly states that all filtering must complete before content reaches the foundation model, which rules out asynchronous or streaming-based approaches that could delay enforcement.

Amazon Comprehend supports toxicity detection, prompt safety classification, and PII detection with entity redaction as managed capabilities. Running these filters in parallel ensures low end-to-end latency, which is essential for customer-facing communication platforms. Parallel execution avoids the cumulative latency that would be introduced by sequential pipelines.

Toxicity detection identifies offensive or abusive content early. Prompt safety classification detects requests for unethical, harmful, or manipulative advice, which directly addresses inappropriate advice solicitation requirements. PII detection with entity redaction ensures that customer privacy is preserved before data is sent to the FM, preventing sensitive information from being processed or echoed in generated responses.

Configuring thresholds allows fine-grained control over sensitivity while maintaining acceptable false-positive rates. Using CloudWatch metrics and alarms enables continuous monitoring of filtering behavior and intervention rates without adding custom routing or human review pipelines that would slow responses.

Option A lacks PII redaction. Option B introduces unnecessary model-building complexity and delayed PII checks. Option C adds sequential latency and introduces human review routing, which violates the response-time requirement.

Therefore, Option D provides the most robust, performant, and AWS-aligned layered content filtering solution.

Option B is the correct solution because AWS AppConfig is specifically designed to support dynamic configuration management with safe rollout, validation, and rollback, which are explicit requirements in the scenario.

By storing the active model provider configuration in AWS AppConfig, the company can switch between Amazon Bedrock model providers in real time without redeploying Lambda code. AppConfig supports deployment strategies such as canary releases, linear rollouts, and immediate deployments, allowing safe and controlled changes. If a configuration causes issues, AppConfig supports automatic rollback, reducing operational risk.

AWS AppConfig also supports schema validation, ensuring that configuration values such as model identifiers, provider names, or inference parameters are valid before being applied. This prevents misconfiguration from impacting production workloads.

Option A uses Parameter Store, which lacks native rollout strategies, validation, and automated rollback, making it unsuitable for safe real-time switching. Option C requires manual routing changes and code coupling, increasing operational overhead and deployment risk. Option D introduces unnecessary complexity by hosting configuration files in Amazon S3 when AppConfig already supports native hosted configurations.

Therefore, Option B provides the most robust, scalable, and low-maintenance solution for dynamic model switching in a serverless Amazon Bedrock inference architecture.

Option A is the best solution because it natively delivers retrieval grounding, source attribution, and low operational overhead through Amazon Bedrock Knowledge Bases. The key requirements are: retrieve from company data sources, cite sources, link claims to source documents, and keep latency under 3 seconds. Knowledge Bases are a managed RAG capability that handles document ingestion, chunking, embeddings, retrieval, and assembly of context for model generation. This eliminates the need to build and maintain custom retrieval infrastructure.

Source attribution is crucial: the application must “link data claims to source documents.” When source attribution is enabled, the RAG pipeline can return references to the underlying documents and segments used for generation. This enables traceable citations that can be surfaced to end users and used for internal auditing.

Using the Anthropic Claude Messages API (or equivalent conversational interface) with RAG allows the application to generate recommendations grounded in retrieved context while keeping responses conversational. Setting relevance thresholds helps reduce noisy retrieval, which supports both accuracy and latency targets by limiting the context passed to the model.

Storing reasoning and citations in Amazon S3 supports audit and retention needs with minimal operational burden. While the prompt may request step-by-step reasoning, AWS best practice is to produce user-facing explanations that are faithful and attributable without exposing internal reasoning traces unnecessarily. With source-grounded outputs, the system can provide concise rationale tied to citations while maintaining fast response times.

Option B emphasizes extended thinking, which increases latency and does not ensure source linkage. Option C adds significant operational overhead through custom model hosting and separate citation systems. Option D requires more custom tracking work than A while not improving retrieval attribution beyond what Knowledge Bases already provide.

Therefore, Option A best meets the requirements with the least operational overhead.

Option C is the correct solution because it enforces privacy controls at inference time, not at ingestion time, which is required when different user roles require different visibility into the same underlying data.

Using an S3 Lifecycle configuration ensures that documents older than 3 years are automatically removed, guaranteeing that the knowledge base references only compliant, recent medical reports. Scheduling Lambda-based syncs keeps the knowledge base aligned with the bucket contents without introducing complex per-upload orchestration.

The most important requirement is role-based PII exposure. Amazon Bedrock guardrails support dynamic application at inference time, allowing the system to select a guardrail configuration based on the authenticated user’s Amazon Cognito group. Surgeons can receive full responses, while engineers receive responses with PII masked—without duplicating data or maintaining multiple knowledge bases.

This approach preserves a single source of truth for medical reports while enforcing privacy through response-level controls. It also maintains full auditability of access and redaction behavior.

Option A permanently removes PII and violates surgeon access requirements. Option B redacts data inconsistently and couples privacy logic to ingestion. Option D doubles storage, increases cost, and introduces data drift risk.

Therefore, Option C best meets privacy, compliance, scalability, and operational efficiency requirements.