Amazon Web Services DOP-C02 Exam With Confidence Using Practice Dumps

The CfCT solution is designed for the exact purpose stated in the question. It extends the capabilities of AWS Control Tower by providing you with a way to automate resource provisioning and apply custom configurations across all AWS accounts created in the Control Tower environment. This enables the company to implement additional account customizations when new accounts are provisioned via the Control Tower Account Factory. The CloudFormation templates and SCPs can be added to a CodeCommit repository and will be automatically deployed to new accounts when they are created. This provides a highly automated solution that does not require manual intervention to deploy resources and SCPs to new accounts.

The requirements clearly indicate the need for modern CodePipeline capabilities , strict execution ordering, Git tag–based triggers, and loose coupling between pipelines. CodePipeline V2 introduces execution modes such as QUEUED and SUPERSEDED , along with native support for advanced trigger filtering when using AWS CodeConnections.

The requirement that the pipeline must wait for the previous run to finish directly maps to QUEUED mode , which ensures that pipeline executions run sequentially rather than replacing in-progress executions. SUPERSEDED mode would cancel the running execution, which violates the requirement.

Triggering the pipeline when new Git tags are pushed is supported through CodePipeline V2 trigger filters using refs/tags/*. Branch-based triggers would not satisfy this condition.

Finally, the requirement that an existing deployment pipeline runs in response to new container images is best met using Amazon EventBridge , which natively emits events for ECR image push actions . EventBridge allows decoupled, event-driven orchestration between pipelines without tight dependencies or custom scripting. This is the AWS-recommended approach for pipeline-to-pipeline coordination.

Options C and D rely on CodePipeline V1 , which lacks modern trigger filtering and execution control. Option B incorrectly uses SUPERSEDED mode and branch-based triggers.

Therefore, Option A correctly combines CodePipeline V2 , QUEUED execution mode , tag-based triggers , and EventBridge-driven pipeline chaining , meeting all requirements with best practices and minimal operational complexity.

The core problem described is deployment inconsistency and lack of reliability caused by using AWS Systems Manager Run Command for application deployment. Run Command executes ad hoc commands and does not provide deployment orchestration, version tracking, lifecycle hooks, or health-based traffic control, which commonly leads to drift between EC2 instances.

The most reliable AWS-native solution is to adopt AWS CodePipeline combined with AWS CodeDeploy . Option B introduces a structured CI/CD pipeline with a clear build stage followed by a test stage , ensuring that only tested artifacts progress to deployment. Sequential build and test stages are preferred for reliability and deterministic behavior, especially when test results must gate deployments.

Option C is essential because AWS CodeDeploy is the service specifically designed to deploy application revisions consistently across EC2 fleets. By creating a CodeDeploy application and deployment group and integrating it with the ALB, deployments gain support for lifecycle events, health checks, instance synchronization, and automatic rollback. This ensures that all EC2 instances receive the same application version and that traffic is managed safely during deployments.

Option A introduces unnecessary parallelism that does not address the core issue. Option D adds excessive complexity with Lambda orchestration. Option E incorrectly replaces CodeArtifact with S3 without addressing deployment reliability.

Therefore, combining CodePipeline (B) with CodeDeploy and ALB integration (C) provides consistent, repeatable, and reliable deployments aligned with AWS best practices.