Reconciling conflicting priorities and interpretations among stakeholders is the correct option.

This choice is correct because obtaining approval for a Security Assessment Plan is primarily a governance and communication challenge. Stakeholders from security, operations, legal, compliance and the business often have different risk tolerances and different interpretations of scope and acceptable remediation timelines. Reaching agreement therefore requires negotiation, clear definition of scope and criteria, and documented decisions rather than purely technical fixes.

Approval hinges on aligning those views so the plan can proceed with an agreed set of objectives and acceptance criteria. That alignment is the reason why Reconciling conflicting priorities and interpretations among stakeholders is the primary challenge.

Preventing infrastructure failures during validation testing is not the best answer because that concern is operational and technical and it belongs to the testing and execution phase. It is important, but it is not the central issue when seeking cross‑stakeholder approval of the plan itself.

Addressing operational permission conflicts in Cloud IAM is also a more specific technical problem that relates to access and execution. It can create delays, but it does not capture the broader governance and prioritization disagreements that most often block plan approval.

Reducing the volume of required deliverables is likewise not the primary challenge because required deliverables are usually dictated by compliance or contractual obligations. Stakeholders may discuss deliverable scope, but the main hurdle remains achieving consensus on priorities and interpretations rather than simply cutting paperwork.

Full AWS Practitioner Certification Question