Study AIP-C01 integration patterns for Step Functions, EventBridge, prompt flows, AppConfig, SDKs, and GenAI development tooling.
This task is about how GenAI features become maintainable software. The exam usually wants you to recognize when workflow orchestration, events, configuration control, prompt-flow tooling, or development discipline is the real solution instead of more prompt tweaking.
The current AIP-C01 domain page treats integration patterns and development tools as a separate task. Recurring patterns include:
That means the question is often about software architecture around the FM, not the FM itself.
| Requirement | Strongest first fit | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Need multi-step orchestration with branching logic | Step Functions or similar workflow control | The workflow is explicit and observable |
| Need loosely coupled system reactions | EventBridge or event-driven pattern | Decouples producers and consumers |
| Need controlled prompt/config rollout | Prompt-management or AppConfig-style discipline | Changes should be versioned and safe |
| Need repeatable dev integration in code | SDK/tooling layer with strong app abstractions | Keeps code maintainable and testable |
| Need structured prompt-chain experimentation | Prompt flows or managed prompt tooling | The pattern itself needs observability and control |
If the prompt sounds like:
the strongest answer often uses workflow orchestration rather than burying everything inside prompt text.
Event-driven design is strong when:
This is one reason AIP-C01 often feels like an application-architecture exam.
Prompts, model routes, thresholds, and rollout flags are still production configuration. Strong answers often keep those controls:
If the prompt or route logic lives as a hidden constant inside app code, operational control is weaker.
When the problem is how the application should be wired and evolved, think workflow, events, config, tooling, and observability.