Improved precision in scope definition and security controls is the correct option because it describes a positive outcome that comes from establishing clear system boundaries and not from failing to define them.

When teams fail to set clear boundaries they generally create ambiguity that produces broader access and overlapping responsibilities. That ambiguity typically prevents improved precision in scoping and security controls rather than causing it, so the improvement stated by the correct option is not a direct consequence of poor boundary definition.

Permission creep from vague Cloud IAM project boundaries is a direct consequence of failing to define system boundaries. When projects and resources are not clearly separated it is hard to apply least privilege and roles and service accounts often become overly broad.

Increased likelihood of regulatory non compliance is also a direct consequence because regulators require clearly scoped controls and auditable responsibilities. Vague boundaries make it difficult to demonstrate required controls for PCI and data protection laws.

Unclear assignment of asset protection responsibilities follows directly from missing boundaries because ownership and accountability are defined by the scope of systems and services. Without explicit boundaries it is common for teams to assume others will protect assets which creates gaps.

Full AWS Practitioner Certification Question