P6 warm-up · 8 questions

Warm up: Stakeholder Communication & Lifecycle Management

A quick 8-question drill on CCAR-P P6, easy to hard. Rate your confidence as you go — a 5-minute win to find where you stand before a full practice set.

0 of 8 answered

P6 · Q1Discovery / success criteria & KPIs (Foundational)
During discovery for a Claude-powered support-triage assistant, the sponsor says success means the tool is 'a game-changer that everyone loves.' Before design begins, what is the most appropriate next step?
How confident are you?
P6 · Q2Solution lifecycle stages (Applied)
A Claude assistant has passed a 20-user POC that proved technical feasibility on hand-picked cases. The sponsor wants to jump straight to an org-wide production launch next sprint. All four responses below could be defended to a delivery-hungry sponsor. What is the best next action?
How confident are you?
P6 · Q3Stakeholder conflict — security vs speed (Applied)Select 2
Security wants a full data-flow review before any external Claude API call; the product lead wants to ship a demo to a key customer on Friday. As the solution architect mediating, which TWO actions best resolve the conflict without sacrificing either party's core interest?
How confident are you?
P6 · Q4Communicating risk/uncertainty to non-technical execs (Foundational)
You must brief a non-technical executive committee on the residual risk of a Claude agent that occasionally produces unsupported claims. What is the most appropriate way to communicate it?
How confident are you?
P6 · Q5Outcome document — proxy trap (Expert)
After launching a Claude meeting-notes assistant, a team's outcome document reports success as 'average user satisfaction rating of 4.6/5 in the in-app thumbs-up survey.' Adoption is high and ratings are strong, yet the original goal was to cut the time managers spend writing follow-ups. Why is this outcome document flawed?
How confident are you?
P6 · Q6Signal triage to review tiers (readiness/triage checkpoint)Sort each into a bucket
A production Claude workflow emits several operational signals. Route each signal to the review tier its pre-defined escalation policy assigns. 'Internal monitoring' = auto-logged, no human needed. 'Architect review' = technical design owner investigates. 'Stakeholder review' = business/compliance owner must be looped in. 'Noise' = expected variation, no action.
Per-request latency fluctuates within the agreed SLA band during normal peak hours.
Groundedness score dips below the pre-agreed floor on a batch, a threshold owned by the technical design.
Monthly token spend crosses the budget ceiling the business sponsor set as a hard line.
Every successful request is recorded with its trace ID and model version for the audit log.
A scheduled quarterly regulated-compliance checkpoint falls due on the calendar this week.
How confident are you?
P6 · Q7Production readiness gate against pre-agreed criteria (Applied)
At the production-readiness review, a Claude solution meets its accuracy and latency bars, but the operations team says no on-call rotation or alerting is configured yet. The sponsor argues those can be added in the first week after launch. Every position sounds reasonable under deadline pressure. What is the best next action?
How confident are you?
P6 · Q8Outcome document — control-in-place + named owner (Expert)
You are reviewing a peer's outcome document for a launched Claude solution before it goes to the governance board. It states the intended outcome, cites the measured result, and names the risk. Every listed element sounds thorough. What is the most likely missing element you should insist on adding?
How confident are you?

Full P6 practice (3 attempts)

Back to readiness check