AWS AIP-C01 30-, 60-, and 90-day study plan for Bedrock, RAG, guardrails, review loops, and final-week priorities.
Use this study plan when you want a structured route through AWS Certified Generative AI Developer - Professional (AIP-C01). This is not a prompt-vocabulary exam. AIP-C01 tests whether you can build, integrate, secure, evaluate, operate, and troubleshoot production GenAI applications on AWS.
AWS’s current exam guide frames AIP-C01 around foundation model integration, data management, compliance, implementation, integration, safety, governance, optimization, testing, validation, and troubleshooting. The strongest answers usually protect the data boundary, ground the answer, constrain tool use, evaluate behavior, monitor cost and quality, and keep rollback or human review available where the scenario requires it.
I verified these current AWS exam facts on May 16, 2026.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Exam | AWS Certified Generative AI Developer - Professional |
| Exam code | AIP-C01 |
| Category | Professional |
| Questions | 75 total |
| Scoring | 65 scored + 10 unscored (unscored items are not identified) |
| Question types | Multiple choice, multiple response, ordering, and matching |
| Time | 180 minutes |
| Passing score | 750, scaled 100-1000 |
| Cost | 300 USD |
| Target candidate | 2+ years building production-grade applications and 1 year implementing GenAI solutions |
AWS’s certification overview lists the exam as 75 questions over 180 minutes. The AIP-C01 exam guide also lists ordering and matching item types, so practice sequence and pairing logic explicitly instead of preparing only for ordinary single-answer questions.
| Domain | Weight | How to allocate study time |
|---|---|---|
| Foundation Model Integration, Data Management, and Compliance | 31% | Spend the most time on model fit, RAG, embeddings, vector stores, prompt design, data retention, and compliance-aware grounding. |
| Implementation and Integration | 26% | Drill agents, tool integrations, deployment strategies, enterprise integration, FM API contracts, workflows, and application development tools. |
| AI Safety, Security, and Governance | 20% | Practice guardrails, prompt-injection defense, IAM, KMS, private access, privacy controls, audit evidence, responsible AI, and approval flows. |
| Operational Efficiency and Optimization | 12% | Learn token cost, model tiering, caching, batching, provisioned throughput, latency, retrieval speed, monitoring, and rollback decisions. |
| Testing, Validation, and Troubleshooting | 11% | Drill evaluation datasets, regression tests, hallucination diagnosis, retrieval failures, tool failures, runtime evidence, and release readiness. |
The first two domains are 57% of scored content, but safety and testing are not optional. In real AIP-C01 scenarios, the best answer usually crosses domains: RAG plus privacy, agents plus tool permissions, streaming plus latency, or evaluation plus rollback.
| Starting point | Typical study time | Best-fit timeline |
|---|---|---|
| You build AWS applications and have shipped GenAI features | 55-80 hours | 30-60 days |
| You know AWS well but are newer to RAG, agents, and evaluation | 85-120 hours | 60 days |
| You know AI concepts but not AWS production architecture | 100-140 hours | 60-90 days |
| You are new to both AWS architecture and production GenAI | 140+ hours | 90 days before scheduling |
Choose the longer route if you still confuse Bedrock model invocation, Knowledge Bases, Agents, Guardrails, vector stores, IAM/KMS boundaries, evaluation, monitoring, and workflow orchestration as one generic “AI app” bucket.
Use one production GenAI loop every week.
flowchart LR
U["Use case"] --> D["Data boundary"]
D --> M["Model and pattern"]
M --> I["Integration path"]
I --> C["Controls"]
C --> E["Evaluation"]
E --> O["Operate and optimize"]
O --> R["Miss rule"]
| Step | What to ask |
|---|---|
| Use case | Is the problem generation, summarization, search, classification, extraction, conversation, workflow automation, or tool action? |
| Data boundary | What source data, PII, retention, isolation, vector store, metadata, audit, or compliance boundary matters? |
| Model and pattern | Should the app use direct prompting, RAG, Knowledge Bases, agents, customization, smaller models, or multimodal processing? |
| Integration path | What API, workflow, event, tool, business system, fallback, retry, streaming, or deployment path is required? |
| Controls | Which guardrail, IAM, KMS, network, content filter, prompt-injection defense, approval, or logging control belongs where? |
| Evaluation | What dataset, metric, regression test, quality threshold, safety test, or human review proves readiness? |
| Operate and optimize | What reduces cost, latency, drift, failures, or safety incidents without weakening quality or governance? |
You do not need a large lab, but you should be able to explain these paths without guessing:
| Path | What you should know |
|---|---|
| Direct FM call | Model fit, prompt template, system instruction, response format, token cost, latency, retry, fallback, and logging |
| RAG path | Source data, chunking, embeddings, vector store, metadata filters, retrieval scoring, grounding, citations, and data freshness |
| Agent path | Tool choice, permissions, state, memory, MCP/tool integration, approval, error handling, and audit trail |
| Safety path | Input filtering, output filtering, guardrails, prompt-injection defense, PII handling, unsafe-output handling, and human escalation |
| Security path | IAM, resource policy, KMS, private access, secrets, tenant isolation, logging, retention, and audit evidence |
| Evaluation path | Golden set, automated evaluation, human review, regression test, release gate, rollback signal, and drift monitoring |
| Optimization path | Model tiering, prompt compression, caching, batching, streaming, provisioned throughput, quotas, and version comparison |
Use this route only if you already have strong AWS application experience and basic GenAI implementation exposure.
| Week | Focus | What to produce |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Foundation model integration, RAG, and data boundaries | A decision table for direct FM call vs RAG vs Knowledge Bases vs agent vs customization, plus a retrieval failure checklist. |
| 2 | Implementation and integration | A workflow map covering Bedrock invocation, agents, tool calls, FM APIs, streaming, retries, enterprise systems, Step Functions, EventBridge, and deployment controls. |
| 3 | Safety, security, governance, and privacy | A control matrix for prompt injection, PII, unsafe output, overprivileged tools, missing audit evidence, privacy leakage, and human approval. |
| 4 | Operations, optimization, testing, and mixed review | An evaluation and runbook pack covering latency, token cost, cache fit, monitoring, quality regression, safety regression, rollback, and troubleshooting order. |
Every study day should create one artifact.
| Artifact | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Architecture sketch | Forces you to place Bedrock, app code, data sources, vector store, IAM, KMS, logs, guardrails, and evals correctly. |
| Decision table | Converts “use AI” into concrete choices: direct call, RAG, agent, customization, or deterministic workflow. |
| Control matrix | Keeps safety, privacy, IAM, KMS, network, logging, approval, and governance controls distinct. |
| Evaluation checklist | Prevents treating a good demo as production readiness. |
| Troubleshooting tree | Separates prompt, retrieval, model, tool, guardrail, permission, latency, and runtime failures. |
| Miss log | Turns plausible distractors into durable rules. |
This is the best default route for most candidates.
| Weeks | Focus | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| 1-2 | Foundation model integration, data, and compliance | Study model fit, Bedrock basics, direct prompting, RAG, embeddings, vector stores, Knowledge Bases, chunking, prompt templates, data retention, and compliance boundaries. |
| 3 | Implementation and integration | Drill agents, tools, MCP/tool boundaries, deployment strategies, enterprise integrations, streaming, function calling, structured output, Step Functions, EventBridge, AppConfig, and CI/CD. |
| 4 | Safety, security, and governance | Practice guardrails, prompt injection, harmful output, PII, private data, masking, IAM, KMS, VPC/private access, audit logs, governance evidence, and responsible AI. |
| 5 | Operations and optimization plus testing and troubleshooting | Study token cost, model tiering, caching, batching, provisioned throughput, latency, monitoring, evaluation datasets, regression testing, and troubleshooting. |
| 6-7 | Mixed production scenarios | Run mixed sets and group misses by failure layer: data, retrieval, prompt, model, tool, guardrail, permission, deployment, evaluation, cost, or latency. |
| 8 | Final repair and scheduling decision | Reread weak lessons, review the cheat sheet, answer sample questions, and schedule only if misses are narrow. |
Use this route if you are building production GenAI depth while studying.
| Phase | Weeks | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| GenAI architecture foundation | 1-3 | You can choose direct prompting, RAG, Knowledge Bases, agents, customization, and deterministic orchestration by requirement. |
| Data and integration | 4-6 | You can place source data, embeddings, vector stores, APIs, business systems, workflows, deployment paths, and fallback behavior correctly. |
| Safety and governance | 7-8 | You can control prompt injection, PII, unsafe output, tool permissions, audit evidence, privacy, and responsible AI requirements. |
| Operations and evaluation | 9-10 | You can tune cost/latency and prove quality, safety, retrieval, and release readiness with measurable evidence. |
| Exam execution | 11-12 | You can answer mixed, ordering, and matching items under time pressure and explain every repeated miss. |
| Domain | Drill questions until you can answer… |
|---|---|
| FM integration, data, and compliance | What model/application pattern fits the use case, data boundary, retrieval requirement, and compliance constraint? |
| Implementation and integration | Where do agents, tools, APIs, workflows, deployment targets, fallback, retries, streaming, and enterprise systems fit? |
| Safety, security, and governance | Which control belongs at input, retrieval, model invocation, tool call, output, logging, human approval, or audit review? |
| Operations and optimization | What reduces cost or latency without harming quality, safety, governance, or observability? |
| Testing and troubleshooting | How do you isolate prompt, retrieval, model, tool, guardrail, permission, deployment, runtime, or evaluation failure? |
| Decision | Choose by asking… |
|---|---|
| Direct FM call vs RAG | Does the answer need current/private facts, citations, or source grounding? |
| RAG vs customization | Is the gap missing knowledge/context or model behavior/style that retrieval cannot solve? |
| Agent vs workflow | Does the system need tool-using autonomy and state, or deterministic orchestration with explicit steps? |
| Guardrail vs prompt instruction | Is the requirement enforceable safety policy or just behavior guidance? |
| IAM vs KMS vs vector-store permission | Is the failure caller authorization, decrypt/key access, or data-store access? |
| Prompt fix vs retrieval fix | Is the output wrong because the instruction is weak or because the retrieved context is missing/stale/noisy? |
| Bigger model vs smaller model with better retrieval | Is the bottleneck reasoning capacity or context quality/cost/latency? |
| Monitoring vs evaluation | Do you need runtime telemetry, or a quality/safety judgment against expected behavior? |
| Human approval vs automated action | Does the tool call carry business, safety, financial, privacy, or compliance risk? |
AIP-C01 can include ordering and matching items. Practice these explicitly.
| Format | Practice habit |
|---|---|
| Ordering | Write the production sequence before looking at choices: define use case, identify data boundary, choose pattern, wire integration, add controls, evaluate, deploy, monitor, optimize. |
| Matching | Match each failure to the right layer: prompt, retrieval, vector store, model, tool, guardrail, IAM, KMS, network, logging, evaluation, or deployment. |
For ordering and matching, partial familiarity is not enough. You need the exact sequence or exact pairing.
Use the final week for decision speed, not new topic sprawl.
| Day | Work |
|---|---|
| 7 days out | Review all five domain weights and reread the cheat sheet. |
| 6 days out | Drill RAG, vector stores, chunking, embeddings, metadata filters, data boundaries, and compliance scenarios. |
| 5 days out | Drill agents, tool use, workflow orchestration, enterprise integration, streaming, retries, fallback, and approval controls. |
| 4 days out | Drill safety, security, IAM, KMS, guardrails, prompt injection, PII handling, privacy, and audit evidence. |
| 3 days out | Drill cost, latency, model tiering, caching, batching, provisioned throughput, monitoring, evaluation, rollback, and troubleshooting. |
| 2 days out | Run a mixed timed block and classify every miss by failure layer. |
| 1 day out | Review only weak rules, ordering/matching traps, official facts, and high-yield comparisons. |
You are close to ready when:
This is not ideal for a professional-level exam, but if you are already near-ready:
Schedule only when your misses are narrow and explainable. If you still choose answers by familiar AI vocabulary instead of use case, data boundary, architecture pattern, safety control, evaluation evidence, or operational constraint, keep studying. AIP-C01 rewards production GenAI judgment under professional-level time pressure.