Exam Bundle

A sampled interaction provides visibility into the sensitive content exposure risk. That evidence would matter for A controlled security trial has not resolved the following risk: A security administrator wants to identify whether generated AI responses include sensitive data. The next step should be a focused implementation and verification. but the current implementation is Configure and verify supported sensitivity label protection throughout Microsoft 365 workloads. The requirement being evaluated here is: A newly assigned security administrator inherits this open requirement: A Microsoft 365 Copilot rollout must respect document-level sensitivity labels. The team needs a supported control, not only a policy document.

A least-privileged test account cannot access the newly restricted knowledge content serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by a test Copilot interaction does not reveal content beyond the user's authorized access.

A test interaction honors item access and relevant protection restrictions. That evidence would matter for A regional administrator encounters the following issue during deployment planning: A company wants to examine the security posture of Copilot in Fabric data sources. The solution should address the issue before broad rollout. but the current implementation is Configure and verify supported sensitivity label protection throughout Microsoft 365 workloads. The requirement being evaluated here is: A newly assigned security administrator inherits this open requirement: A Microsoft 365 Copilot rollout must respect document-level sensitivity labels. The team needs a supported control, not only a policy document.

Correct source permissions and apply sensitivity labels or DLP before exposing them to AI search addresses a different data-protection mechanism. It does not provide the specific safeguard required here: configure supported Purview DLP controls for eligible generative AI apps and interactions.

Correlate supported AI audit activity with sharing or DLP events where available addresses a different classification need. It does not demonstrate a controlled regulated prompt triggers the required DLP restriction where supported.

Evaluating the Microsoft Purview-supported protections and workload permissions for Fabric AI experiences addresses a different data-protection mechanism. It does not provide the specific safeguard required here: configure supported Purview DLP controls for eligible generative AI apps and interactions.

The delegated user can manage the required settings without unrestricted tenant administration serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by a controlled regulated prompt triggers the required DLP restriction where supported.

A qualifying test interaction is retained under the relevant policy scope. That evidence would matter for A second Microsoft 365 business unit reports the following protection gap: A legal group must retain relevant Copilot prompts and responses where supported. It needs a configuration that can be tested without a tenant-wide change. but the current implementation is Configure supported Purview DLP controls for eligible generative AI apps and interactions. The requirement being evaluated here is: A tenant wants to prevent prompts with regulated data being sent to unsupported AI services.

The trend report covers the expected apps, users and time periods serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by a controlled regulated prompt triggers the required DLP restriction where supported.

Correct source permissions and apply sensitivity labels or DLP before exposing them to AI search addresses a different data-protection mechanism. It does not provide the specific safeguard required here: configure supported Purview DLP controls for eligible generative AI apps and interactions.

Correlate supported AI audit activity with sharing or DLP events where available addresses a different classification need. It does not demonstrate a controlled regulated prompt triggers the required DLP restriction where supported.

Evaluating the Microsoft Purview-supported protections and workload permissions for Fabric AI experiences does not demonstrate the classification result required here: a controlled regulated prompt triggers the required dlp restriction where supported.

The delegated user can manage the required settings without unrestricted tenant administration serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by a controlled regulated prompt triggers the required DLP restriction where supported.

A test interaction honors item access and relevant protection restrictions. That evidence would matter for A regional administrator encounters the following issue during deployment planning: A company wants to examine the security posture of Copilot in Fabric data sources. The solution should address the issue before broad rollout. but the current implementation is Configure supported Purview DLP controls for eligible generative AI apps and interactions. The requirement being evaluated here is: A controlled security trial has not resolved the following risk: A tenant wants to prevent prompts with regulated data being sent to unsupported AI services. The next step should be a focused implementation and verification.

Unauthorized users cannot retrieve the protected source content through the assistant serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by a controlled regulated prompt triggers the required DLP restriction where supported.

Correct source permissions and apply sensitivity labels or DLP before exposing them to AI search addresses a different classification need. It does not demonstrate recorded test activity appears in scoped AI security reports.

Configuring supported Purview controls for Microsoft Foundry-connected AI applications does not demonstrate the classification result required here: recorded test activity appears in scoped ai security reports.

Reviewing supported Purview AI data security controls for Entra-registered applications addresses a different classification need. It does not demonstrate recorded test activity appears in scoped AI security reports.

The relevant high-risk AI activity is correlated into an eligible investigation. That evidence would matter for An organization wants to detect high-risk AI use by employees already subject to insider risk review. but the current implementation is Use supported data security AI activity monitoring and DLP activity evidence. The requirement being evaluated here is: A security team needs a report of employees pasting confidential text into external AI tools.

Sensitive source files receive the expected label before AI use serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by recorded test activity appears in scoped AI security reports.

The highest-risk exposure appears in the agreed remediation queue serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by recorded test activity appears in scoped AI security reports.

Correct source permissions and apply sensitivity labels or DLP before exposing them to AI search addresses a different classification need. It does not demonstrate recorded test activity appears in scoped AI security reports.

Configuring supported Purview controls for Microsoft Foundry-connected AI applications does not demonstrate the classification result required here: recorded test activity appears in scoped ai security reports.

Configuring appropriate supported retention and compliance controls for the eligible AI interaction data addresses a different data-protection mechanism. It does not provide the specific safeguard required here: use supported data security AI activity monitoring and DLP activity evidence.

The relevant high-risk AI activity is correlated into an eligible investigation serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by recorded test activity appears in scoped AI security reports.

The policy detects qualifying test AI interactions and records the effective response serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by recorded test activity appears in scoped AI security reports.

The inventory separates the intended enterprise and other AI app categories serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by recorded test activity appears in scoped AI security reports.

Using supported data security AI activity monitoring and DLP activity evidence does not demonstrate the classification result required here: the registered ai app is discovered and applicable protection signals are available.

Using the Microsoft Purview data security posture management for AI experience for discovery and assessment addresses a different data-protection mechanism. It does not provide the specific safeguard required here: review supported Purview AI data security controls for Entra-registered applications.

Assigning appropriate Purview DSPM for AI roles using least privilege does not demonstrate the classification result required here: the registered ai app is discovered and applicable protection signals are available.

The relevant high-risk AI activity is correlated into an eligible investigation serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by the registered AI app is discovered and applicable protection signals are available.

The AI risk dashboard identifies relevant connected apps and data exposure signals serves a different requirement. It does not resolve the specific issue addressed by the registered AI app is discovered and applicable protection signals are available.

The inventory separates the intended enterprise and other AI app categories. That evidence would matter for An internal audit requests technical evidence for this requirement: An AI governance team needs to distinguish enterprise AI tools from unmanaged consumer tools. The owner authorizes a limited pilot before wider enforcement. but the current implementation is Review supported Purview AI data security controls for Entra-registered applications. The requirement being evaluated here is: An administrator wants to protect custom AI apps registered with Microsoft Entra.