ServiceNow CIS-DF Dumps

The Unified Map is designed to provide enhanced visual insight and analysis across the CMDB by consolidating configuration item (CI) relationships from multiple sources—such as Discovery, Service Mapping, and manual relationships—into a single, interactive view. While traditional Service Mapping maps are optimized for modeling and understanding application-to-infrastructure dependencies, the Unified Map extends this capability with more flexible visualization and exploration features.

Option B is correct because the Unified Map allows users to zoom in and out, enabling both high-level overviews and detailed inspections of complex CI relationships. This capability is particularly valuable in large enterprise environments where services may span hundreds or thousands of infrastructure components. Zoom functionality supports impact analysis, troubleshooting, and architectural reviews without overwhelming the user with unnecessary detail.

Option C is also correct because the Unified Map supports filtering of map nodes based on user preferences. Administrators and analysts can filter by CI class, relationship type, lifecycle state, or other attributes, allowing them to focus on what is most relevant to their task—such as identifying only production CIs, security-relevant components, or a specific technology stack. This aligns strongly with Data Foundations principles by improving usability and decision-making without altering underlying data.

Option A is incorrect because modifying the number of levels displayed is a characteristic more closely associated with Service Mapping configuration rather than an added Unified Map capability. Option D is incorrect because visibility into an application and its host is a core Service Mapping function, not an enhancement unique to the Unified Map.

In summary, the Unified Map adds value by improving interactivity, flexibility, and user-driven insight across the CMDB.

Automatic relationship creation is fundamental to maintaining a service-aware and trustworthy CMDB. In ServiceNow, this capability is primarily delivered by Discovery and Service Mapping.

Discovery (Option C) automatically identifies infrastructure components—such as servers, network devices, and storage—and creates technical relationships between them (for example, “runs on,” “connected to,” or “depends on”). These relationships form the backbone of infrastructure dependency mapping.

Service Mapping (Option B) builds on Discovery by creating application- and service-level relationships. It maps how application components interact across servers, databases, and middleware, resulting in accurate Application Service models aligned with CSDM. These relationships are created and maintained automatically as the environment changes.

Option A (IntegrationHub ETL) focuses on data ingestion and transformation; it does not inherently create or maintain relationships unless explicitly scripted. Option D (Workflow Studio) orchestrates processes and automations but does not discover or infer CI relationships.

Therefore, the ServiceNow solutions that create automatic relationships are Service Mapping and Discovery, making Options B and C correct.

In CSDM 5, production line monitoring systems (such as SCADA, MES, IoT telemetry platforms, and operational monitoring tools) are technical systems responsible for operating, monitoring, and supporting services, not for designing them or consuming them. These systems directly align with the Service Delivery (Manage Technical) domain.

The Service Delivery domain is used to model how services are technically delivered and operated, including the infrastructure, platforms, and operational technologies that ensure availability, performance, and reliability. In a manufacturing context, production line monitoring systems continuously observe equipment health, throughput, alerts, and operational metrics—making them part of the technical service delivery layer.

Option A (Build and Integration) applies to CI/CD pipelines and system construction activities. Option B (Foundation) focuses on base CIs such as locations, people, and organizations. Option C (Service Consumption) models how customers or consumers use services, which is not applicable here. Option D (Design and Planning) is used for service architecture and planning artifacts, not live operational systems.

Therefore, production line monitoring systems correctly belong in Service Delivery (Manage Technical), making Option E the correct answer.

The CMDB Health Dashboard is a central component of CMDB Data Foundations insight and governance. It measures and tracks data quality using well-defined health indicators that focus on the accuracy, relevance, and usability of CI data.

Two key data quality areas included in the dashboard are Stale CIs and Duplicate CIs.

Stale CIs (Option D) refer to configuration items that have not been updated within a defined time window. These records are risky because they may no longer reflect the current state of the environment, leading to inaccurate impact analysis, poor change decisions, and misrouted incidents. Monitoring staleness helps organizations identify where discovery, integrations, or ownership processes are failing.

Duplicate CIs (Option E) occur when the same real-world asset or service is represented by multiple records. Duplicates undermine trust in the CMDB, distort reporting, and break service mappings. The CMDB Health Dashboard highlights duplicate trends and integrates with de-duplication and remediation workflows to address them.

Options A (Downgraded CIs), B (Upgraded CIs), and C (Missing CIs) are not standard CMDB Health Dashboard quality dimensions. While “missing” data may be inferred through completeness checks, Missing CIs as a category is not directly tracked.

Therefore, the correct answers are D – Stale CIs and E – Duplicate CIs, which are core CMDB Health indicators used to maintain high-quality configuration data.

In CMDB modeling, accurately defining relationships is critical for impact analysis, service mapping, and Change Management. In this scenario, Application Servers can host multiple Applications, and Applications can also run across multiple Application Servers (for example, in clustered, load-balanced, or distributed architectures).

This architectural reality defines a many-to-many relationship between the Application Server table and the Application table.

In ServiceNow, many-to-many relationships are common for application hosting models, especially in modern environments that use horizontal scaling, redundancy, or containerized workloads. Modeling this correctly ensures that incidents, changes, and outages affecting a single server can be accurately traced to all impacted applications—and vice versa.

A one-to-many or many-to-one relationship would incorrectly assume exclusivity in one direction, which does not reflect real-world application deployment patterns. A one-to-one relationship would be even more restrictive and inaccurate.

Therefore, the correct relationship type is A – Many-to-many, which aligns with CMDB best practices and CSDM service modeling principles.

In ServiceNow CMDB governance, the CI Class Manager allows administrators to assign ownership and accountability at the class level. This ownership is used by governance tools—especially CMDB Data Manager—to automatically determine who receives tasks and actions related to data lifecycle management.

The group reference field that aligns with class ownership and is consumed by CMDB Data Manager policies is the Managed By Group. This field represents the team responsible for the technical stewardship and lifecycle management of CIs within that class.

When CMDB Data Manager executes policies such as retention, archival, or cleanup, it uses the Managed By Group to assign tasks to the appropriate data owners. This ensures governance actions are routed to the correct accountable team without manual intervention.

Approval Group, Support Group, and Change Group serve different purposes. Approval Group is used for workflow approvals, Support Group is used for operational ticket routing, and Change Group supports Change Management governance. None of these reflect data ownership at the class level.

Therefore, to leverage CI class ownership defined in the CI Class Manager within CMDB Data Manager policies, the correct field is Managed By Group, making Option B the verified answer.

Within the Common Service Data Model (CSDM), regulatory, security, and compliance-related information—especially for PII and PCI—must be modeled at the business and information level, not at the infrastructure or service offering level. The correct location for this data is Business Applications combined with Information Objects.

Business Applications represent the logical applications that support business capabilities and processes. Since compliance obligations (such as GDPR, PCI-DSS, or HIPAA) are assessed based on how the business uses data—not how many servers host the application—this is the correct anchor point for audit-relevant context.

Information Objects are explicitly designed to capture what data is processed, stored, or transmitted by an application, including data classifications such as PII, PCI, PHI, or confidential business data. They allow organizations to document regulatory scope, retention rules, encryption requirements, and audit controls without overloading CI records or polluting infrastructure classes.

Option A is incorrect because Technical Service Offerings and Groups focus on operational support and service delivery, not regulatory data context. Option C is also incorrect because Customer Service Offerings describe how services are consumed, while databases are technical components; neither is the authoritative place for compliance definitions.

Therefore, Business Applications and Information Objects are the correct CSDM constructs to support audits and regulatory compliance, making Option B the correct answer.

In ServiceNow, Vulnerability Response and Security Incident Response rely heavily on business context to accurately assess risk, prioritize remediation tasks, and communicate impact to stakeholders. From a CSDM (Common Service Data Model) perspective, this context is primarily delivered through properly modeled relationships between Application Services and Business Applications.

The “Application Services with Business Application Relationships” Get Well Playbook directly addresses this requirement. In CSDM, Application Services represent the technical, deployable services that run in the environment, while Business Applications represent the logical applications that support business capabilities. When these two are correctly related, security teams can clearly understand which business processes, customers, and revenue streams are affected by a vulnerability or security incident.

Without this relationship, vulnerabilities may still be detected, but they lack meaningful prioritization. For example, a critical vulnerability on an application service supporting a revenue-generating or customer-facing business application should be addressed far more urgently than one tied to a low-impact internal tool. This relationship is what enables risk-based prioritization, rather than purely technical severity-based prioritization.

The other options do not fulfill this need. Location hierarchy issues (Option A) and CI lifecycle status consistency (Option D) relate more to CMDB hygiene and governance, not security context. Product ownership gaps (Option C) affect accountability but do not directly enable risk estimation during security response.

Therefore, Option B is the correct and CSDM-aligned Get Well Playbook for ensuring sufficient business context in Vulnerability Response and Security Incident Response workflows.

The Run tab in the CSDM Data Foundations Dashboard focuses on enabling operationalized, risk-aware use cases, including Integrated Risk Management (IRM) and Entity Scoping. These use cases require organizations to understand what data is processed, where it resides, and which technical components are involved, rather than only service impact for ITSM.

Information Objects play a central role at this stage.

Option A is correct because Business Applications related to Information Objects allow organizations to identify what types of data (PII, PCI, PHI, regulated data) are processed by each business application. This relationship is essential for risk classification, regulatory compliance, and audit scoping in IRM. Without it, risk assessments lack data sensitivity context.

Option D is also correct because Logical CIs (such as databases, schemas, or data stores) related to Information Objects establish where sensitive data is stored or processed at a technical level. This enables IRM to trace risk from business context down to technical exposure, supporting control testing, issue management, and remediation prioritization.

Option B (Location hierarchy) supports foundational data quality but does not directly enable risk or entity scoping. Option C (Business Applications to Application Services) is critical for service impact and Change/Incident Management, but it is more aligned to service operations rather than risk and data-centric scoping, which is the focus of the Run playbooks for IRM.

Therefore, the correct answers are A and D, as they directly support IRM entity scoping, regulatory analysis, and risk visibility through CSDM-aligned data modeling.

In ServiceNow Data Foundations, specifically within CMDB Data Manager, policies are used to enforce data quality, completeness, and governance across configuration items (CIs). When defining a Data Manager policy, administrators can configure task creation for non-compliant records and specify how those tasks are assigned. One key configuration is the Assignment type, where “User Group Field” allows assignment to a group dynamically based on a group reference field on the CI record.

Out of the box, ServiceNow provides two default and universally available group reference fields for this purpose:

Assignment Group

Managed By Group

These two fields are considered core CMDB governance fields and are consistently available across most CI classes. They align directly with ITIL 4 Service Configuration Management and CSDM accountability models, ensuring that remediation tasks are routed to teams responsible for operational ownership or technical management of the CI.

Assignment Group (Correct – D)This is the most commonly used operational field in ServiceNow. It represents the team responsible for working on tasks related to the CI and is fully supported by CMDB Data Manager for automated task assignment.

Managed By Group (Correct – C)This field represents the group accountable for managing the CI throughout its lifecycle. It is a standard CMDB field and is explicitly supported by Data Manager policies for governance-driven task routing.

The other options are not default Data Manager assignment fields:

Owned by Group is often added through extensions or governance customization and is not guaranteed to exist across all CI classes.

Support Group is a CSDM and ITSM operational concept, commonly derived or mapped, but it is not a default group reference field exposed for CMDB Data Manager task assignment.

From a Data Foundations and CSDM governance perspective, using Assignment Group and Managed By Group ensures consistent accountability, scalable automation, and alignment with CMDB best practices.

In Data Foundations, the “Insight” topic is about making CMDB and service data easy to discover, understand, and use for operational decisions. Natural Language Queries (NLQ) support this by enabling admins and practitioners to ask questions in plain language (for example, finding specific CIs, services, or relationships) and quickly retrieve relevant results without navigating multiple tables and filters.

NLQ is performed in CMDB Workspace because CMDB Workspace is the primary user experience for exploring configuration data, visualizing relationships, and consuming insights from the CMDB in a guided way. It is designed as the central hub where CMDB users validate CI information, examine dependencies, and use workspace capabilities to troubleshoot and analyze. NLQ fits naturally here: it accelerates discovery and analysis by reducing the need for advanced query building and manual report construction.

The other options are not the correct home for NLQ in the Data Foundations context. The CMDB Health Dashboard is focused on KPIs, completeness, correctness, and compliance scoring—showing what is wrong, not serving as the main interface for free-form natural language exploration. CI Class Manager is used for class modeling and class configuration tasks. CMDB Data Manager is used for governance automation such as lifecycle policies (attestation, archival, deletion) and controlled data operations. Therefore, the correct place for administrators to perform NLQ for CMDB exploration and analysis is CMDB Workspace.

The Agent Client Collector (ACC) in ServiceNow is designed to collect inventory data from endpoints that are not consistently reachable by traditional Discovery methods. ACC is especially valuable where credential-based, network-based discovery is impractical or impossible.

Devices in secure environments (Option C), such as isolated networks, restricted zones, or highly regulated environments, often block inbound discovery traffic. ACC runs locally on the device and securely sends inventory data outward, making it ideal for these scenarios.

Devices that intermittently connect to the network (Option D), such as laptops, remote endpoints, or roaming devices, are another core use case. Traditional Discovery requires the device to be reachable during scheduled scans, which is unreliable for mobile or off-network assets. ACC ensures inventory data is collected whenever the device is online.

Option A (data center servers) is better served by agentless Discovery, which provides deeper infrastructure and relationship data. Option B (network devices in the DMZ) are typically discovered using SNMP and network discovery, not ACC.

ACC complements Discovery as part of a layered ingestion strategy, ensuring accurate inventory coverage across diverse environments.

Therefore, the correct answers are C – Devices in secure environments and D – Devices that intermittently connect to the network.

Creating new CI classes is a high-impact configuration activity and must follow strict Data Foundations and CSDM-aligned best practices to avoid long-term technical debt and upgrade risk.

Option B is a recommended first step. Before creating any new CI class, administrators should install or update the CMDB CI Class Models Store application and verify whether an appropriate class already exists. ServiceNow frequently delivers new CI classes through updates and class model packages, and duplicating an existing or planned class can lead to fragmentation and governance issues.

Option C is also correct. When a new class is truly required, it should be added under an appropriate parent class to inherit attributes, behaviors, and discovery patterns. For an IoT Sensor, this might be under a hardware or device-related parent class, ensuring consistency and minimizing customization.

Option A is incorrect and dangerous—deleting unused classes can break dependencies and historical data. Option D is also discouraged; modifying existing classes to repurpose them violates upgrade-safe design principles and can negatively impact discovery, integrations, and reporting.

By verifying existing models first and extending the class hierarchy correctly, organizations maintain a clean, scalable, and upgrade-safe CMDB.

Therefore, the correct answers are B and C.

In ServiceNow, the Duplicate CI Remediator is designed to resolve duplicate records while preserving the most authoritative data from each source. Data Foundations guidance clearly states that automated discovery is the system of record for technical attributes, such as IP address, hostname, and operational status, while manually maintained records often contain valuable business context, such as relationships to business applications or services.

In this scenario, the discovered CI contains the most accurate and up-to-date technical data, making it the correct CI to retain as the primary record. However, the manually imported CI has a critical relationship to a business application, which is essential for impact analysis, incident prioritization, and CSDM alignment. Deleting this CI without preserving the relationship would result in loss of business context and reduced CMDB value.

The Duplicate CI Remediator supports selective merging, allowing administrators to retain one CI while merging specific attributes or relationships from the duplicate. Option C reflects this best practice by retaining the discovered CI and merging the relationship from the manually imported CI, ensuring both technical accuracy and business relevance are preserved.

Options A and D would result in the loss of important relationship data, while Option B would discard the discovered CI, violating the principle that discovery should be the authoritative source for technical attributes.

Therefore, Option C is the correct and Data Foundations–aligned answer.

In Data Foundations, a low “Unique Locations” result indicates the CMDB contains duplicate Location records (or inconsistent location usage) that reduce data reliability for operational reporting and service analytics. This sits under “Insight” because the dashboard is highlighting a measurable quality issue, and the playbook provides a structured remediation path to restore confidence.

The recommended playbook-aligned process is to review the duplicate locations, determine which one is correct per the organization’s naming and data standards, then re-point dependent records (CIs) to the correct Location before removing the duplicate. That sequence is essential: if you delete a duplicate location without first updating related CIs, you risk leaving CIs with missing/invalid location references, creating new completeness and correctness issues.

Option C matches best practice: validate which location record should remain, update all affected CIs (and any other dependent records) to use the correct location, and then delete (or retire/merge, depending on process controls) the duplicate record. Option B is risky because it skips validation and dependency updates. Option D defeats the purpose of “Unique Locations” by allowing ongoing inconsistency. Option A is not the best fit because “Duplicate CI Remediator” is oriented toward CI duplicates; Location is typically a reference/organization data domain and is handled through the specific remediation steps for that data set. Therefore, C is the recommended process.

The CMDB Data Manager is the ServiceNow capability responsible for generating actionable governance tasks and assigning them to CI class owners and data stewards. These tasks appear directly in the “My Work” tab within the CMDB Workspace, enabling proactive and role-based CMDB governance.

CMDB Data Manager focuses on data lifecycle management, including archival, retirement, and cleanup of CIs based on defined policies. When lifecycle rules or retention thresholds are met—or when human validation is required—the Data Manager creates tasks to prompt responsible owners to take action. This ensures that CMDB data remains accurate, compliant, and lean over time.

The CMDB Health Dashboard (Option C) provides visibility into health metrics such as completeness, correctness, and compliance, but it does not generate tasks. Similarly, De-duplication templates (Option A) support duplicate identification and remediation workflows, but they do not create ongoing governance tasks in the CMDB Workspace.

By surfacing tasks in “My Work,” CMDB Data Manager operationalizes governance and embeds accountability into daily workflows, which is a key principle of CMDB Data Foundations.

Therefore, the correct answer is Option B – CMDB Data Manager.

Managing CI classes and Principal Class designation is a schema-level CMDB activity that directly impacts how CIs appear in ITSM processes such as Incident, Change, and Problem. In ServiceNow, these activities require specific administrative privileges to ensure governance, security, and upgrade safety.

The sn_cmdb_admin role is required because it provides administrative access to CMDB structures, including CI class hierarchy management, Principal Class configuration, and overall CMDB governance. Without this role, users cannot add, remove, or govern CI classes effectively.

The personalize_dictionary role is also required because adding or removing CI classes involves dictionary-level changes. CI classes are implemented as tables that extend the CMDB schema, and modifying the Principal Class filter relies on dictionary metadata. This role grants permission to create, modify, or remove class definitions safely.

The sn_csdm_admin role focuses on managing CSDM constructs (domains, services, lifecycle alignment) but does not grant dictionary or schema modification rights. The cmdb_query_builder role is used only for querying and reporting and does not allow structural changes.

Therefore, the two required roles are personalize.dictionary and sn_cmdb_admin, making Options A and B correct.

In ServiceNow, controlling source precedence when multiple authorized data sources update the same CI attributes is a core responsibility of Identification and Reconciliation Engine (IRE) governance.

The correct and supported method is to assign priority to each data source in reconciliation rules. Reconciliation rules determine which source wins when multiple sources attempt to update the same attribute on a CI. By defining source precedence, the Configuration Manager ensures that the most authoritative system of record (for example, Discovery over manual imports, or HR systems over spreadsheets) consistently controls specific attributes or classes.

Option B is incorrect because manually sequencing data source runs is unreliable, does not scale, and violates Data Foundations best practices. Option C only controls how often data is refreshed, not which source is authoritative. Option D is incorrect because identification rules are used to uniquely identify CIs—not to control attribute-level precedence.

Using reconciliation rules provides deterministic, auditable, and automated control, which is essential for maintaining CMDB trust and avoiding data conflicts.

Therefore, the correct answer is A – Assign a priority to each data source in reconciliation rules.

This question tests understanding of reconciliation source priority in the Identification and Reconciliation Engine (IRE) in ServiceNow.

In reconciliation rules, lower numeric values represent higher priority. Therefore, the priority order is:

ServiceNow (100) – highest authority

Altiris (200)

SCCM (300) – lowest authority

Why A is correct

Because Altiris (200) has higher priority than SCCM (300), data from Altiris can update records originally inserted by SCCM. This is exactly how reconciliation precedence works—higher-priority sources can overwrite lower-priority ones.

Why C is correct

SCCM, even though it has the lowest priority, is still an authorized discovery source. It can insert new records into the Windows Server table when no existing CI is identified. Priority only affects updates, not the ability to create records.

Why B is incorrect

ServiceNow (priority 100) can update records from Altiris and SCCM because it has the highest priority. The statement incorrectly claims it cannot.

Why D is incorrect

SCCM does not have the highest authority. A higher numeric value means lower priority, so SCCM cannot update records created by higher-priority sources.

The Unified Map in ServiceNow provides a consolidated view of services and their underlying components, integrating Discovery and Service Mapping data. To make this view actionable, Service Owners can apply filters to focus on relevant elements and reduce visual noise.

Filtering by CI type (Option A) is a core capability. It allows the Service Owner to show or hide categories such as servers, databases, load balancers, or applications—making it easier to analyze specific layers of the service.

Filtering by Business Criticality (Option D) is also available and highly valuable. This enables Service Owners to prioritize views around high-impact components, ensuring attention is focused on CIs that pose the greatest risk to service delivery.

Option B (Discovery source) is not typically exposed as a Unified Map filter because the map focuses on operational and service context, not ingestion provenance. Option C (Managed by group) is a governance attribute and is not a standard visual filter within the Unified Map.

Thus, the correct filter options are A – CI type and D – Business criticality.

In Data Foundations, “Insight” focuses on turning configuration data into actionable visibility. CMDB 360 (often associated with Multisource CMDB capabilities) provides a guided experience in CMDB Workspace for exploring CI data and running queries across sources. Within this experience, Saved Queries are managed directly under the CMDB 360 area of CMDB Workspace because they are part of the CMDB 360 query-and-analysis workflow.

A CMDB 360 Saved Query is not the same as a generic CMDB Query Builder query created from classic navigation modules. The CMDB 360 experience typically uses a tile/window approach where users can view existing saved queries, create new queries, modify them, and run them to retrieve CMDB 360 data aligned to multisource reporting and analysis. Keeping saved queries on the CMDB 360 tab makes them easy to discover and reuse for repeatable insights (for example, coverage and source comparisons, CI data quality checks by source, and targeted investigation of records).

The Insights tab in CMDB Workspace is generally used to understand adoption and health-related insights about CMDB features, not as the primary location for creating CMDB 360 multisource saved queries. “Coverage” is a specific lens/view and does not represent the saved-query creation workspace. “CMDB Query Builder” is a related capability, but the question explicitly asks where CMDB 360/Multisource Saved Queries are viewed and created in CMDB Workspace, which is the Saved queries window on the CMDB 360 tab.

Application Service Mapping is a critical capability in ServiceNow for enabling business-aware Change Management. Its primary value is not in identifying physical shutdown sequences or CI locations, but in translating technical changes into business impact.

When an organization plans a data center move, multiple infrastructure components—servers, databases, network devices—may be affected. On their own, these technical CIs provide little insight into business risk. Application Service Mapping connects these CIs to Application Services and Business Services as defined by the Common Service Data Model (CSDM). This relationship allows Change Managers to see which business services, customers, and processes are impacted by the planned change.

By leveraging service maps, Change Management can answer critical questions such as:

Which customer-facing services may experience downtime?

What revenue-generating or mission-critical services are at risk?

Which stakeholders must be notified or involved in approvals?

Option A is incorrect because service mapping does not determine shutdown order; that is handled by infrastructure planning. Option C focuses on physical location data, which is typically managed through Location CIs and Discovery, not service mapping.

Therefore, the correct answer is B – To understand the business impact of CIs, which aligns directly with ITIL 4, CSDM, and Change Management best practices.

CSDM is designed to connect technology delivery to business consumption so organizations can answer questions like “who is impacted?” quickly and consistently. In a critical incident, the healthcare provider needs to identify impacted users in business terms—clinicians, admin teams, specific sites, or departments—rather than only listing technical components.

Option D (“Service Offerings by Department or Location”) is the most CSDM-aligned data because it reflects who consumes the service and how that consumption is segmented. In CSDM, a Business Service / Service Offering represents what customers consume, and the offering can be associated with organizational constructs such as department, business unit, or location. For healthcare, this is especially valuable because impact is often location-based (hospital site, clinic) and role-based (patient intake, scheduling, ward operations). Using service offerings and their consumer mapping helps quickly identify likely impacted user groups and prioritize communications and workarounds.

Option A (environment attribute) helps differentiate production vs non-production and can support prioritization, but it does not identify impacted users. Option B is historical context, not a reliable mechanism to determine current impacted users. Option C is useful operationally for listing impacted configuration items, but it is ITSM task data, not specifically CSDM consumer modeling. CSDM’s value here is linking the technical disruption to the business consumer view via service offerings and consumption segmentation.

Duplicate identifies data quality issues where the same asset is modeled more than once, violating CMDB trust principles.

Required ensures minimum viable CI creation and update—critical for ingestion and lifecycle integrity.

Orphan highlights broken relationships, which directly impact impact analysis, Service Mapping, and Change Management.

Stale flags CIs that are no longer being refreshed by Discovery or other sources but still exist in the CMDB.

Recommended improves completeness and usability, supporting operational and reporting use cases without being mandatory.

Audit validates data correctness by comparing CI field values against predefined templates or policies.

This exact mapping is what ServiceNow expects in CMDB Health Dashboard–related exam questions and real-world implementations.

In the Common Service Data Model (CSDM), the Incident form is designed to capture operational impact and enable effective incident routing, prioritization, and communication. To achieve this, CSDM prescribes using classes that represent how services are delivered and consumed, not how they are planned or governed.

Application Service (Option A) is an appropriate class on the Incident form because it represents the technical service that is running in production and is directly impacted during an incident. Application Services are service-mapped, relate to underlying infrastructure, and support impact analysis, root cause investigation, and automated assignment. This makes them ideal for associating incidents with technical outages or degradations.

Service Offering (Option C) is also appropriate because it represents how a service is consumed by users or business units. Service Offerings allow Incident Management to understand who is affected, enable targeted communications, and support SLA/OLA alignment. For example, an email service offering for a specific department clearly identifies the impacted consumer group.

Business Application (Option B) is not recommended on the Incident form. Business Applications are logical representations used for portfolio, ownership, and governance purposes, not day-to-day operational incident handling. Using them directly on incidents can reduce precision and automation.

Service Portfolio (Option D) is a strategic construct used for service lifecycle management and is never associated with operational incidents.

Therefore, according to CSDM best practices, the correct classes used on the Incident form are Application Service and Service Offering, making Options A and C the correct answers.

In ServiceNow, duplicate CI management spans detection, insight, and remediation:

The CMDB Health Dashboard – Correctness surfaces where duplicates exist and their impact, providing visibility and prioritization.

Certification Tasks support governed resolution, allowing assignment to individuals or groups to validate and correct data.

De-duplication Templates enable bulk remediation, ideal when standardized merge rules can be applied across many duplicates.

The Duplicate CI Remediator offers a guided, record-by-record wizard, preserving relationships and history for safer individual resolutions.

De-duplication Tasks are the work items generated by these processes, but they do not themselves represent an outcome—hence not applicable.

This mapping aligns with CMDB Data Foundations best practices, ensuring duplicates are identified, prioritized, and remediated efficiently and safely.

This question tests understanding of how the Identification and Reconciliation Engine (IRE) evaluates incoming CI data against Identification Rules and their priority order in ServiceNow.

From the identification rule shown:

Serial number (+ type) → Priority 100

Serial number → Priority 200

Name (Hardware) → Priority 300

MAC address + name (Network Adapter) → Priority 400

For a CI to be identified and matched, the incoming record must satisfy one complete identifier entry exactly as defined for that class.

CI1 (Name match only)

Although the name matches an existing Hardware CI, name alone is a low-priority identifier (300) and is not sufficient to uniquely identify a Hardware CI unless no higher-priority identifiers exist and the identifier entry criteria are fully satisfied. In practice, Hardware identification relies on serial number–based identifiers, not name-only matching, to avoid false positives. Therefore, CI1 cannot be confidently matched and is inserted as a new record.

CI2 (IP address match)

IP address is not part of any Hardware identification rule shown. IP address is typically used for discovery correlation or network relationships, not as a primary Hardware identifier. Since no identifier entry includes IP address, CI2 does not match any valid identification rule and is also inserted as a new record.

Because neither CI satisfies a valid identifier entry, both records are inserted as new CIs.

When organizations transition from legacy CMDB status fields (such as custom install status or operational status values) to CSDM-aligned lifecycle status fields, the goal is to map old values to standardized lifecycle stages without disrupting existing processes. In ServiceNow, this is achieved through the Life Cycle Mapping table.

The Life Cycle Mapping table is specifically designed to translate legacy or custom status values into CSDM lifecycle stages and statuses. This allows organizations to preserve historical data and integrations while progressively adopting CSDM standards. By modifying this table, administrators can define how existing status values correspond to CSDM lifecycle stages such as Plan, Build, Deploy, Operate, and Retire.

The Life Cycle Stages table (Option A) defines the standard stages themselves and should not be modified, as these are core to CSDM governance. Life Cycle Stage Status (Option C) defines valid statuses within a stage and is also part of the standardized model. Life Cycle Controls (Option D) enforce governance rules but do not perform value translation.

Therefore, to safely transition from legacy status fields to CSDM lifecycle statuses, the correct and supported approach is to modify the Life Cycle Mapping table, making Option B the correct answer.