Some challenge briefs require settings that the walkthrough deliberately does not perform, because the lab permissions do not allow them. This leaves attendees unsure whether they actually passed.
Examples in the za edition:
- Challenge 1 criteria ask for the policy initiative and the custom role assigned at management group scope, but attendees hold Contributor on their resource group only, so the walkthrough correctly scopes everything to the resource group.
- Challenge 2 criteria ask for a Premium Key Vault, an HSM backed key with a rotation policy, a user assigned managed identity, and SQL TDE. The walkthrough uses a Standard Key Vault, a software RSA key rotated on demand, a system assigned identity, and no SQL.
Both are reasonable lab simplifications, but the gap between "what the brief asks for" and "what the walkthrough delivers" is not called out, so an attendee checking the success criteria will appear to fall short.
Suggestion: mark the brief criteria as a production target, and provide a clearly labelled lab achievable subset, or align the two.
Some challenge briefs require settings that the walkthrough deliberately does not perform, because the lab permissions do not allow them. This leaves attendees unsure whether they actually passed.
Examples in the za edition:
Both are reasonable lab simplifications, but the gap between "what the brief asks for" and "what the walkthrough delivers" is not called out, so an attendee checking the success criteria will appear to fall short.
Suggestion: mark the brief criteria as a production target, and provide a clearly labelled lab achievable subset, or align the two.