CIS-DF Exam Dumps - Certified Implementation Specialist - Data Foundations (CMDB and CSDM)

In Data Foundations, “Insight” is about using health metrics to understand whether the CMDB is trustworthy and operationally usable. The CMDB Health Dashboard organizes health into scorecards that group related checks. When leadership asks for Duplicate CIs, Orphan CIs, and Stale CIs, they are asking about the CMDB’s ongoing hygiene and adherence to governance expectations—not simply whether fields are filled in.

These three metrics align best with Compliance because they represent whether CI records comply with rules that keep the CMDB clean and current over time:

Duplicate CIs indicate the identification and governance controls are not consistently preventing multiple records for the same real-world item.

Orphan CIs indicate relationship governance gaps—records exist without expected relationships or context, reducing their operational value and often signaling incomplete ingestion or lifecycle control issues.

Stale CIs indicate lifecycle management gaps—records are not being updated, attested, retired, or archived appropriately, which increases risk and noise in operational processes.

By contrast, Completeness focuses on whether required attributes are populated (owners, support group, environment, etc.). Correctness focuses on whether values and relationships are accurate and logically valid. While duplicates/orphans/stale can affect correctness indirectly, the dashboard’s grouping for these hygiene and lifecycle-oriented measures is best represented by Compliance, which is why B is the correct answer.

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 Data Foundations, “Ingest” is not limited to Discovery. It includes establishing reliable sources and mechanisms to populate and maintain CMDB attributes—especially those that Discovery cannot provide. Warranty expiration dates are a classic example of non-discoverable data: they typically come from procurement systems, asset repositories, vendors, or contract tools rather than from device interrogation.

The correct approach is to maintain these attributes via a scheduled data import from an authoritative external source. This ensures ongoing accuracy and consistency at scale. A scheduled import allows you to define a repeatable integration pattern, apply data quality checks, and keep warranty data current as vendors and procurement records change—without relying on manual updates that inevitably drift over time.

Option A is incorrect because the CMDB Reconciliation Engine resolves conflicts between multiple data sources and applies precedence rules; it does not create the warranty values out of thin air. Reconciliation helps decide which source wins when updates occur, but you still need a source feed providing the warranty attribute values. Option B is also not recommended because creating a new CI class just to hold non-discoverable attributes fragments the model and complicates reporting and processes. Best practice is to keep the attributes on the appropriate hardware CI classes (or related normalized structures, when applicable) and manage them through governed ingestion from authoritative systems. Therefore, C is the best method.

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 Data Foundations, “Configuration” includes modeling CI relationships in a way that reflects real-world technology dependencies and supports operational use cases such as impact analysis, troubleshooting, and service mapping. For “Application Servers host Applications,” the scenario describes that multiple Application Servers can host one or more Applications. In most enterprise environments, the reverse is also true: an Application can be hosted across multiple Application Servers (for example, horizontal scaling, clustered deployments, active-active architectures, and separate servers for different tiers or components of the same application).

Because both sides can have multiple related records, the correct logical relationship is many-to-many:

One Application Server → hosts many Applications

One Application → can be hosted on many Application Servers

In ServiceNow CMDB terms, many-to-many relationships are represented through the CMDB relationship model (parent/child relationships), enabling the platform to store multiple relationship records linking servers and applications without forcing an unnatural single-reference constraint. This supports better CMDB quality and stronger downstream outcomes—especially for incident triage (“what apps are affected if this server is down?”) and change impact analysis (“what servers could be impacted if we change this app component?”).

A one-to-many or many-to-one model would incorrectly restrict either the server to one application or the application to one server, which does not align with common hosting patterns and would reduce the CMDB’s usefulness and accuracy.