A structured feedback session must enable informed review, traceable decisions, and accountable follow-through. Option B allows stakeholders to examine architecture diagrams, evaluation results, risk registers, or prototypes before the meeting. The focused agenda keeps discussion aligned with decisions that must be made rather than allowing the session to become an unstructured status conversation. Written decision records prevent different participants from leaving with incompatible interpretations. Assigning an owner and due date to every action converts feedback into executable delivery work. Options A, C, and D depend heavily on memory, provide inadequate preparation time, and create weak decision traceability. In-flight deployments particularly require documented feedback because accepted changes may affect scope, cost, risk, testing, and release timing.

Study Guide references/topics: Stakeholder feedback; decision records; action ownership; lifecycle alignment; communication planning.

Alignment is an ongoing governance process rather than a one-time approval. Option D creates a predictable cadence for reassessing objectives, constraints, assumptions, risks, service levels, and success measures as business and technical conditions change. Option E requires disagreements to be surfaced and reconciled explicitly, preserving decision traceability and preventing unresolved conflicts from reappearing during implementation or operation. The routine should document decisions, owners, accepted trade-offs, action items, and conditions that trigger reconsideration. Recording meetings may improve accessibility but does not itself produce alignment. Rotating facilitation is optional and may weaken accountability. Automatically escalating every disagreement to an executive sponsor bypasses normal architectural negotiation and should be reserved for material deadlocks.

Study Guide references/topics: Stakeholder alignment; feedback cadence; assumption management; conflict reconciliation; decision records; lifecycle governance.

Adversarial tests directly evaluate behavior under attack, including prompt injection, malformed records, malicious document content, credential-extraction attempts, and unauthorized tool requests. Integration tests provide the complementary coverage required by the question: they verify authentication, retrieval, prompt construction, model invocation, validation, logging, and downstream actions as one end-to-end system. Regression, smoke, and unit testing remain valuable, but they do not jointly satisfy the two stated objectives. A stable regression set measures previously established behavior; smoke tests provide shallow availability confirmation; and prompt-rendering unit tests cover only one component. Anthropic recommends explicit prompt-injection defenses and task-specific evaluations that represent both normal and edge-case traffic. Prompt-injection mitigation

Before a pilot begins, the architect must understand the workflows being enabled, the associated security boundaries, and the correct ownership of each configuration decision. Option D establishes this foundation. Organization-wide, non-overridable controls belong in managed configuration, whereas repository-specific MCP servers, shared permissions, and team subagents generally belong in project scope.

Option A then converts those decisions into an initial project baseline that the pilot group can use. The baseline should identify approved MCP endpoints, minimum permission rules, denied operations, subagent responsibilities, configuration ownership, and observable success criteria. Anthropic distinguishes managed, user, project, and local scopes according to who they affect and whether they are shared with the team. Claude Code Configuration Scopes

Options B and C are broad-rollout activities and should not occur before pilot evidence is available. Option E is explicitly post-pilot: findings must first be collected before the configuration can be iterated and stabilized.

The correct lifecycle is discovery, boundary definition, baseline design, limited pilot, evidence review, baseline refinement, documentation and training, followed by controlled expansion with a support and rollback process.

Study Guide references/topics: Claude Code rollout planning; scope ownership; MCP baselines; permission design; pilot strategy; operational enablement.

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