The requirement is to quickly determine whether the target variable is predictable, with minimal development effort. Amazon SageMaker Autopilot is specifically designed for this purpose.

SageMaker Autopilot automatically handles data preprocessing, feature engineering, algorithm selection, model training, and evaluation. It generates multiple candidate models and provides detailed performance metrics, allowing teams to quickly assess predictability without writing custom code.

Option B requires significant manual development. Option C is incorrect because Amazon Macie is a data security and classification service, not an ML modeling service. Option D is unsuitable because Amazon Bedrock models are not intended for structured tabular prediction tasks.

Therefore, SageMaker Autopilot provides the fastest and least effort solution.

AWS ML best practices state that data preprocessing applied during training must be applied identically during inference. For min-max normalization, this requires reusing the minimum and maximum values calculated from the training dataset.

If production data is normalized using different statistics, the feature distributions will differ from what the model learned, leading to degraded prediction accuracy. AWS documentation explicitly warns against recomputing normalization parameters on inference data.

Options A, C, and D introduce data leakage or inconsistent feature scaling. Option B ensures consistency between training and inference pipelines and preserves model integrity.

Therefore, Option B is the correct and AWS-aligned solution.

S3 Gateway Endpoint: Allows private access to S3 from within a VPC without requiring a public IPv4 address, ensuring that data transfer between the primary and secondary accounts is secure and private.

Bucket Policy Update: The S3 bucket policy in the secondary account must explicitly allow access from the primary account ' s IAM principals to provide the necessary permissions.

Interface VPC Endpoints: Required for private communication between the VPC and Amazon SageMaker and Amazon Redshift services, ensuring the solution operates without public internet access.

This configuration meets the requirement to avoid public IPv4 addresses and allows secure and private communication between the accounts.

AWS best practices recommend event-driven architectures to automate ML workflows with minimal operational overhead. Amazon EventBridge natively integrates with Amazon S3 and Amazon SageMaker Pipelines, making it the most efficient solution for triggering retraining when new data arrives.

Amazon S3 automatically emits object creation events. By creating an EventBridge rule that listens for these events and targets a SageMaker Pipeline execution, the pipeline can start immediately when new training data is uploaded. This solution requires no custom code, no polling, and no infrastructure management.

Option A is incorrect because S3 lifecycle rules manage storage transitions, not workflow execution. Option B introduces custom code and periodic scanning, which increases operational complexity and cost. Option D (MWAA) is powerful but requires maintaining an Airflow environment and is unnecessary for a simple event-based trigger.

AWS documentation explicitly highlights EventBridge + SageMaker Pipelines as the recommended pattern for automated retraining workflows triggered by data arrival.

Therefore, Option C is the correct and AWS-verified answer.

AWS Glue DataBrew supports datasets sourced directly from Amazon S3 paths. To clean and normalize data, AWS documentation specifies using DataBrew recipes, which define transformation steps such as standardization, deduplication, and formatting.

A profile job is used only for data analysis and statistics generation, not for transformation. A recipe job applies actual transformations to the data and writes the output to Amazon S3.

JDBC connections are used for relational databases, not S3 buckets. Therefore, options C and D are invalid.

AWS clearly documents that the correct workflow is:

Create a DataBrew dataset from an S3 path

Define transformations using a recipe

Run a recipe job to produce cleaned data

Thus, Option B is the correct and AWS-aligned answer.

Step 1

Upload the existing models to the same Amazon S3 bucket path.

Multi-model endpoints require all models to be stored under a single S3 prefix so SageMaker can dynamically load them on demand.

Step 2

Create a SageMaker AI model with multi-model endpoints enabled.

This creates a SageMaker model resource that uses a multi-model–capable container (for example, XGBoost, PyTorch, or TensorFlow MME-compatible containers).

Step 3

Create an endpoint configuration that references a multi-model container.

The endpoint configuration defines:

Instance type

Initial instance count

The multi-model container reference

Step 4

Deploy a real-time inference endpoint by using the endpoint configuration.

Real-time endpoints ensure low-latency inference, which is a strict customer requirement.

Step 5

Update the models to use the new endpoint ID. Pass the model IDs to the new endpoint.

Each inference request specifies a model ID so SageMaker knows which model to load from S3.

Scenario: The company needs to run a batch job for 90 minutes every weekend over the next 6 months. The processing can handle interruptions, and cost-effectiveness is a priority.

Why Spot Instances?

Cost-Effective: Spot Instances provide up to 90% savings compared to On-Demand Instances, making them the most cost-effective option for batch processing.

Interruption Tolerance: Since the processing can tolerate interruptions, Spot Instances are suitable for this workload.

Batch-Friendly: Spot Instances can be requested for specific durations or automatically re-requested in case of interruptions.

Steps to Implement:

Create a Spot Instance Request:

Use the EC2 console or CLI to request Spot Instances with desired instance type and duration.

Use Auto Scaling: Configure Spot Instances with an Auto Scaling group to handle instance interruptions and ensure job completion.

Run the Batch Job: Use tools like AWS Batch or custom scripts to manage the processing.

Comparison with Other Options:

Reserved Instances: Suitable for predictable, continuous workloads, but less cost-effective for a job that runs only once a week.

On-Demand Instances: More expensive and unnecessary given the tolerance for interruptions.

Dedicated Instances: Best for isolation and compliance but significantly more costly.

Option A is correct because AWS Glue is the AWS-native managed ETL service built specifically to discover schema , run ETL jobs , and store metadata in the AWS Glue Data Catalog . AWS documentation states that Glue crawlers can automatically discover and catalog new or updated data sources , and that the Data Catalog automatically captures and manages schema metadata. This directly matches the requirement to run an ETL job on data in Amazon S3, discover the schema, and store the metadata with the least manual effort.

AWS Glue is also the lowest-effort answer because the service is managed and purpose-built for this workflow. The Glue Data Catalog serves as a persistent metadata repository, and AWS documents that crawlers infer schema information and integrate it into the catalog automatically. That means the ML engineer does not need to build custom schema inference logic or manually maintain metadata storage. This is exactly the kind of manual work the question is trying to avoid.

The other options are not as good. SageMaker Data Wrangler is primarily for visual data preparation and feature engineering, not for running a managed ETL-plus-catalog workflow with schema stored in a metadata catalog. Athena with Step Functions would require assembling more custom orchestration and still does not naturally replace the Glue Data Catalog workflow. Launching an EC2 instance introduces the highest operational overhead and does not align with the requirement for least manual effort. Therefore, the best verified AWS-docs answer is A , because AWS Glue combines ETL, schema discovery, and metadata cataloging in one managed service.

AWS recommends SageMaker shadow testing as the safest way to validate a new model version using real production traffic without impacting production responses. A shadow variant receives a copy of inference requests but does not return predictions to end users. This completely eliminates the risk of exposing incorrect predictions.

Options A and B are canary deployments. While useful, they still allow v2 to return responses to real users, which violates the requirement to prevent disruption. Option C sends 100% of traffic to v2 externally and is risky.

Shadow variants are explicitly designed to minimize risk while using real data, making them the AWS best practice for pre-production validation.

Therefore, Option D is correct.