It's technically possible for one business object to call another. Outside of using utility objects are any of the following valid reasons why you would want to do this?

• A. No. objects should never call other objects.
• B. Yes but object calling other objects could lead to undesirable memory problems so care must be taken.
• C. Yes, to create a wrapper object as a vehicle for a reusable sequence of application logic.
• D. Yes, but only if the object is calling itself.

Consider the following steps for a theoretical manual process.
* Check in input folder any new files.
* If there are no files check again later as files can arrive anytime, and there is no limit to the number of files that may come.
* Open the next available file.
* Take the first case.
* Start System X and find the case details.
* If the case can't be found, move to the next one.
* After finding the case in System X, fetch additional case details from System Y.
* Again if the case can't be found, move to the next one.
* Analyse all the data to see if System Z should be updated.
* If the data does not meet the requirements, add notes indicating this to System X and Y and move to the next case.
* If the data does meet the requirements, update the case in System Z.
* Add notes to System X and Y and move to the next case.
* At the end of the file, go back and look for another.
* Stop checking for new files at 16:00 and finish any remaining cases.
* When all work is complete create a report of the day's exception cases.
* Close down Systems X, Y and Z.
It is imperative that notes are applied to System X and Y, regardless of whether System Z is updated or not, what could the process do? (Choose two.)

• A. Add notes before rejecting a case as a Business Exception.
• B. Add all notes before attempting to update System Z.
• C. Create an unhappy path where notes are added as part of exception handling.
• D. Create new cases for any cases not found in Systems X and Y so that notes can be added.

MedBank have recently introduced a new Credit Card platform Cred+. There is a requirement to migrate account and card details from the existing banking platform PCBS on to Cred+.
Account IDs of the cases requiring data transfer will be held on a SQL database. The requirement is that, for each account ID specified on the SQL database, the following data must be read from the PCBS application and input into the Cred+ application:
* Account ID
* Product Type
* Name
* Address
* Date of Birth
* Card PAN (Primary Account Number or credit card number)
* Card Issue Date
* Card Expiry Date
Once the data has been successfully input into Cred+ the correct record on the SQL database will be updated to indicate data transfer is complete. All work queues will be encrypted, however due to the sensitivity of the data, MedBank insist that a single robot account does not have access to both PCBS and CRED+ systems.
The following high level design has been proposed:

Which of the following statements about the solution design are correct? (Choose two.)

• A. The solution enables multiple instances of the Get PCBS Data and Update Cred+ processes to run without risk of collision.
• B. To reduce the elapsed time of the end to end process, the Get Cases process should be run across multiple machines.
• C. Such sensitive data should not be stored in a Blue Prism work queue.
• D. If the PCBS application suffers an outage, all Blue Prism processes specified in this design must stop processing immediately.
• E. The Process Get PCBS Data should be stopped if the Cred+ application suffers an outage to prevent a backlog of cases in the PCBS Data work queue.
• F. There is a risk that the outcome of a data transfer will not be recorded in the SQL database.