The correct answers are Update the code in the pull request to trigger a new scan and Add the repository's primary branch name to the workflow on push trigger.

The first action, Update the code in the pull request to trigger a new scan, forces GitHub Actions to re-evaluate the workflow and run the code scanning jobs when a new commit or change is pushed. Making a small change or pushing a new commit to the feature branch typically triggers the workflow and produces a fresh analysis instead of the "Analysis not found" message.

The second action, Add the repository's primary branch name to the workflow on push trigger, ensures the workflow is configured to run for the repository base branch that GitHub uses to store analysis results. If the workflow only lists other branches then scans for the pull request base may not be generated. Including the primary branch in the workflow triggers causes scans to run for that branch and avoids missing analysis for pull requests targeting it.

Add the feature branch name to the workflow on push trigger is not the best fix because the missing analysis is usually related to the base branch configuration. Adding the feature branch to push triggers will not address the core issue when the base or primary branch is not included.

Close the pull request and open a new pull request from the primary branch is incorrect because pull requests are meant to be opened from feature branches into the primary branch. Recreating the pull request from the primary branch is unnecessary and does not solve the underlying workflow trigger configuration problem.

Create a separate code scanning workflow file for the repository is unnecessary because the existing workflow can be adjusted to include the correct triggers. Creating a new workflow file is not required to get a successful scan if the issue is just missing branch names or the need to re-run the scan.

Full AWS Practitioner Certification Question