Guidewire ClaimCenter-Business-Analysts Dumps Questions Answers

The User Story Card exhibit contains several documentation errors when compared to standard Guidewire requirements gathering best practices and the specific scenario provided.

Missing Requirement Number and Logic Gap (Option C):

Traceability:In the second row of the exhibit (the payment validation rule), the "Requirement Number" column is completely blank. Traceability back to the original requirements document is mandatory for all entries.

Logic Precision:The requirement explicitly states that the rule applies to"personal auto claims". However, the logic documented in the "Rules" column (If Exposure Type = VehicleDamage Then Block...) doesnotcheck the Policy Type. It relies solely on the Exposure Type, which could exist on Commercial Auto policies as well. To accurately reflect the business requirement, the condition If PolicyType = Personal Auto must be added (similar to how it was done in the first row).

Missing DV/LV Context for Validation (Option D):

UI Anchoring:The second requirement is a validation rule that triggers an error ("Driver's Date of Birth is required..."). For the system to highlight the specific field on the screen (the "Driver Date of Birth" widget) when the error occurs, the rule must be associated with the specificDetail View (DV)orList View (LV)where that field resides (e.g., VehicleIncidentDV). The exhibit lists "Not Applicable" in the "Name of DV or LV" column. This is incorrect because providing the DV name ensures the error message is displayed contextually next to the field rather than as a generic page-level error, improving the user experience.

Why other options are incorrect:

Option A:The LOB column is used for filtering, reporting, and release management. Even if the rule logic checks the policy type, the LOB column is required metadata and should not be removed.

Option B:While the first requirement (the calculation) lacks a DV name (which it should have), it is aBusiness Rule(assignment), not a validation. Therefore, it doesnotgenerate an error or warning message for the user, so the second part of Option B is incorrect.

Option E:The "Rules" column is exactly where the calculation logic (Date of Loss - Date of Birth) belongs. The developer needs this information to implement the automation.

250 to 350 words From Exact Extract of Guidewire ClaimCenter Business Analyst documentation:

In the lifecycle of a check within Guidewire ClaimCenter, the Requested status indicates that the payment instruction has been successfully handed off to the downstream check writing or electronic funds transfer system. Once a check reaches this status, it is considered a committed financial transaction and is locked from further editing.

Why Option A is incorrect:You cannot edit a check that is in "Requested" status. The "Edit" button will likely be disabled or the fields locked because the data has already left the system.

Why Option C is incorrect:A "Stop" payment is typically reserved for scenarios where a physical check has been lost, stolen, or destroyedafterit was printed and mailed. While a Stop Payment does prevent the check from being cashed, it is a specific banking process often involving fees.

Why Option D is Correct:To correct an administrative error (such as the wrong amount) for a check that has been processed but not yet negotiated (cashed), the standard procedure is toVoidthe check. Voiding the check in ClaimCenter performs two critical functions:

It reverses the financial T-accounts (reserves and payments) associated with the transaction, ensuring the claim financials are accurate.

It updates the status to "Voided," effectively cancelling the payment in the system.

After voiding the incorrect check ($1,200), the Adjuster must then create anew checkfor the correct amount ($950) to pay the claimant.

This scenario highlights the value of Feature Knowledge and Gap Analysis during preparation.

Prevention of unnecessary work (Option A):Because the BA researched and found the "Graphical Incident Capture Accelerator," the team avoided the costly mistake of deciding to "develop the... functionality from scratch." This is a direct outcome of the BA's preparation preventing an inefficient custom build.

Comparison of Legacy vs. New (Option B):The text details that the BA "reviewed ClaimCenter functionality" and explicitly noted the difference ("saw that ClaimCenter did not have... like they have in their current application"). This ability to articulate the gap between theAs-Is(Legacy) and theTo-Be(Base ClaimCenter) allowed the BA to present the Accelerator as the perfect bridge solution.

Why other options are incorrect:

Option C:The team didnotaccept the "base product process" (which lacked the graphics); they accepted theAccelerator(an add-on) to match the legacy expectation of clickable hot spots.

Option D:The decision was not made "in advance." The text states the team made the "quick decision"during the workshop. The preparation enabled theteam'sdecision, but the BA did not make it unilaterally beforehand.