S3 Lifecycle policies automate data retention and deletion. By specifying an expiration rule for 7 years, objects older than that period are permanently deleted without manual intervention.
"To automatically delete aged data, configure an S3 Lifecycle rule with an expiration policy for objects older than the retention period."
- Ace the AWS Certified Data Engineer - Associate Certification - version 2 - apple.pdf

Option A is correct because this is a sequential, dependent workflow where each validation stage depends on the previous one, and the overall execution can last up to 24 hours. AWS states that Standard Workflows in Step Functions are ideal for long-running, durable, auditable workflows and can run for up to one year. AWS also documents the Wait for a Callback with Task Token pattern, which is specifically designed for workflows that must pause until an external process reports completion. That maps directly to multi-level validations that may complete asynchronously but still need orchestration within a bounded window.
Option B is incorrect because Express Workflows can run for only up to five minutes, so they cannot support a transaction workflow that may take many hours. Option C adds more custom code and operational management than Step Functions and does not naturally provide the same stateful orchestration, dependency tracking, and callback waiting pattern. Option D is also more operationally heavy and is better suited to data pipeline orchestration than per-transaction validation workflows. Therefore, Standard Step Functions provides the lowest operational cost while fully meeting the timing and dependency requirements.

Amazon DynamoDB is a fully managed NoSQL database service that provides fast and predictable performance with seamless scalability. DynamoDB offers two capacity modes for throughput capacity:
provisioned and on-demand. In provisioned capacity mode, you specify the number of read and write capacity units per second that you expect your application to require. DynamoDB reserves the resources to meet your throughput needs with consistent performance. In on-demand capacity mode, you pay per request and DynamoDB scales the resources up and down automatically based on the actual workload. On-demand capacity mode is suitable for unpredictable workloads that can vary significantly over time1.
The solution that meets the requirements in the most cost-effective way is to use AWS Application Auto Scaling to schedule higher provisioned capacity for peak usage times and lower capacity during off-peak times. This solution has the following advantages:
It allows you to optimize the cost and performance of your DynamoDB table by adjusting the provisioned capacity according to your predictable workload patterns. You can use scheduled scaling to specify the date and time for the scaling actions, and the new minimum and maximum capacity limits. For example, you can schedule higher capacity for every Monday morning and lower capacity for weekends2.
It enables you to take advantage of the lower cost per unit of provisioned capacity mode compared to on- demand capacity mode. Provisioned capacity mode charges a flat hourly rate for the capacity you reserve, regardless of how much you use. On-demand capacity mode charges for each read and write request you consume, with no minimum capacity required. For predictable workloads, provisioned capacity mode can be more cost-effective than on-demand capacity mode1.
It ensures that your application performs consistently during peak usage times by having enough capacity to handle the increased load. You can also use auto scaling to automatically adjust the provisioned capacity based on the actual utilization of your table, and set a target utilization percentage for your table or global secondary index. This way, you can avoid under-provisioning or over-provisioning your table2.
Option A is incorrect because it suggests increasing the provisioned capacity to the maximum capacity that is currently present during peak load times. This solution has the following disadvantages:
It wastes money by paying for unused capacity during off-peak times. If you provision the same high capacity for all times, regardless of the actual workload, you are over-provisioning your table and paying for resources that you don't need1.
It does not account for possible changes in the workload patterns over time. If your peak load times increase or decrease in the future, you may need to manually adjust the provisioned capacity to match the new demand. This adds operational overhead and complexity to your application2.
Option B is incorrect because it suggests dividing the table into two tables and provisioning each table with half of the provisioned capacity of the original table. This solution has the following disadvantages:
It complicates the data model and the application logic by splitting the data into two separate tables. You need to ensure that the queries are evenly distributed across both tables, and that the data is consistent and synchronized between them. This adds extra development and maintenance effort to your application3.
It does not solve the problem of adjusting the provisioned capacity according to the workload patterns. You still need to manually or automatically scale the capacity of each table based on the actual utilization and demand. This may result in under-provisioning or over-provisioning your tables2.
Option D is incorrect because it suggests changing the capacity mode from provisioned to on-demand. This solution has the following disadvantages:
It may incur higher costs than provisioned capacity mode for predictable workloads. On-demand capacity mode charges for each read and write request you consume, with no minimum capacity required. For predictable workloads, provisioned capacity mode can be more cost-effective than on-demand capacity mode, as you can reserve the capacity you need at a lower rate1.
It may not provide consistent performance during peak usage times, as on-demand capacity mode may take some time to scale up the resources to meet the sudden increase in demand. On-demand capacity mode uses adaptive capacity to handle bursts of traffic, but it may not be able to handle very large spikes or sustained high throughput. In such cases, you may experience throttling or increased latency.
1: Choosing the right DynamoDB capacity mode - Amazon DynamoDB
2: Managing throughput capacity automatically with DynamoDB auto scaling - Amazon DynamoDB
3: Best practices for designing and using partition keys effectively - Amazon DynamoDB
[4]: On-demand mode guidelines - Amazon DynamoDB
[5]: How to optimize Amazon DynamoDB costs - AWS Database Blog
[6]: DynamoDB adaptive capacity: How it works and how it helps - AWS Database Blog
[7]: Amazon DynamoDB pricing - Amazon Web Services (AWS)

QuickSight does not have access to the S3 bucket and QuickSight does not have access to decrypt S3 data are two possible factors that could cause the permissions-related errors. Amazon QuickSight is a business intelligence service that allows you to create and share interactive dashboards based on various data sources, including Amazon Athena. Amazon Athena is a serverless query service that allows you to analyze data stored in Amazon S3 using standard SQL. To use an Amazon QuickSight dashboard that is based on Amazon Athena queries on data that is stored in an Amazon S3 bucket, you need to grant QuickSight access to both Athena and S3, as well as any encryption keys that are used to encrypt the S3 data. If QuickSight does not have access to the S3 bucket or the encryption keys, it will not be able to read the data from Athena and display it on the dashboard, resulting in an error message that indicates insufficient permissions.
The other options are not factors that could cause the permissions-related errors. Option A, there is no connection between QuickSight and Athena, is not a factor, as QuickSight supports Athena as a native data source, and you can easily create a connection between them using the QuickSight console or the API. Option B, the Athena tables are not cataloged, is not a factor, as QuickSight can automatically discover the Athena tables that are cataloged in the AWS Glue Data Catalog, and you can also manually specify the Athena tables that are not cataloged. Option E, there is no IAM role assigned to QuickSight, is not a factor, as QuickSight requires an IAM role to access any AWS data sources, including Athena and S3, and you can create and assign an IAM role to QuickSight using the QuickSight console or the API. References:
Using Amazon Athena as a Data Source
Granting Amazon QuickSight Access to AWS Resources
Encrypting Data at Rest in Amazon S3

Option C is correct because the main performance problem here is the large number of very small files. AWS Glue documentation explains that for Apache Iceberg tables, managed compaction reduces metadata overhead and improves read performance by compacting many small objects into larger ones. AWS Glue also provides table optimizers for Iceberg, and compaction can be configured to run automatically. This directly addresses the requirement that performance should not degrade as more files are added over time.
Option A could help somewhat, but it adds more operational work and the crawler step is unnecessary noise for this question. With Iceberg tables in the Glue Data Catalog, the better answer is the native automatic compaction capability rather than a manually scheduled Glue job. Option B is incorrect because the Data Catalog does not simply compact files "every minute" by default; compaction is enabled and configured through the Iceberg table optimizer settings. Option D is insufficient because partitioning alone does not solve the small-files problem, and frequent crawler runs do not prevent long-term Iceberg degradation. The AWS- native, least-operations answer is to enable automatic compaction based on thresholds.