Security requirements mapped to their originating artifacts such as use cases and user stories is correct. A Security Requirements Traceability Matrix is intended to show the link between each security requirement and the artifact that produced it so you can trace why the requirement exists and what it relates to.

The matrix maps requirements back to source artifacts like use cases, user stories, design documents, regulatory references, and test cases so you can perform impact analysis, verify coverage, and maintain alignment as the system evolves. This mapping is the defining characteristic of a traceability matrix and it supports validation and change control.

Security requirements aligned with documented misuse and abuse scenarios is not the best choice because alignment with misuse cases is part of threat modeling and requirements derivation rather than the core purpose of a traceability matrix. The matrix documents origins and relationships broadly and not only misuse or abuse scenarios.

Functional requirements linked with non functional requirements such as performance or availability is also incorrect because that statement describes relationships between requirement types rather than tracing security requirements back to originating artifacts. A traceability matrix focuses on origin and coverage rather than correlating functional and non functional properties.

Security requirements associated with data ownership and stewardship assignments is incorrect because ownership metadata may be recorded elsewhere but it is not the primary aim of a Security Requirements Traceability Matrix. The matrix emphasizes where requirements came from and what they map to rather than who owns specific data or stewardship roles.

Full AWS Practitioner Certification Question