Score Higher on Verified CCAR-F | Claude Certified Architect – Foundations Exam Questions with Answers

Option D fixes the actual failure while avoiding needless reprocessing. Anthropic’s Message Batches API treats every request independently, records the result against its unique custom_id, and explicitly states that one failed request does not affect the others. The 9,700 successful documents therefore require no retry. The failed requests exceeded the available context; increasing max_tokens changes the permitted output budget, not the size of the input context, so option C does not correct the cause. Resubmitting all 10,000 requests would repeat paid work, and prompt caching would only reduce some repeated-input cost without repairing oversized requests. Chunking each failed document reduces the input presented to Claude so every replacement request fits within the model’s context window . The application can then merge the extracted partial structures deterministically, retaining the original document identifier and chunk ordering. Anthropic recommends retry logic for failed batch requests and using custom_id to match results because batch results can arrive out of order. Consequently, selective retry plus chunking is both the technically correct recovery path and the lowest-cost option.

================

Option D uses the established integration mechanism without creating unnecessary infrastructure. Anthropic’s Claude Code MCP documentation specifically recommends connecting an MCP server when users repeatedly copy information from an external system, such as an issue tracker, into conversations. Once connected, the server exposes Jira operations through named, schema-defined tools that Claude can discover and invoke directly. This allows the agent to retrieve ticket descriptions, acceptance criteria, comments, and metadata while preserving the server’s authentication and access controls.

Option A exposes authentication details to shell commands and requires the agent to construct requests and parse responses repeatedly. Option B is justified only when no existing server provides the required capabilities or the workflow requires highly specialized operations. The question requires standard Jira information, so building and maintaining another server is unnecessary. Option C creates stale, manually synchronized copies that lose permissions, current comments, and authoritative ticket state. The team should therefore select a trusted Jira MCP implementation, configure appropriate read-only scopes where possible, and verify its tool descriptions and data-access boundaries before enabling it.

================

Option A describes the principal reason an independent review context is valuable. The implementing session contains the assumptions, interpretations, and reasoning that produced the refactor. When asked to review its own work, Claude may continue operating within those same assumptions and therefore overlook defects caused by them. A fresh reviewer evaluates the resulting diff and stated requirements independently, without inheriting the implementation narrative.

Anthropic’s Claude Code best-practices guidance explicitly recommends an adversarial review step using a fresh subagent or separate context. It explains that the reviewer should see the diff and review criteria rather than the reasoning that produced the change. Option B is possible in an unusually long session, but the scenario provides no evidence that the context window was exhausted. Option C could influence review quality, but no prompt difference is established. Option D is factually incorrect: a local Claude Code session can inspect the checked-out repository through its filesystem tools. The reliable workflow is therefore a writer/reviewer separation in which implementation occurs in one context and correctness review occurs in a fresh context with explicit evidence and reporting criteria. Claude Code best practices

================