Vertical scaling addresses the separate need to increase the capacity of an existing compute resource because vertical scaling changes the size or power of one instance or server; it is not as direct as Sustainability pillar for the actual requirement to minimize environmental impact associated with running workloads.

Experiment-driven performance choices addresses the separate need to benchmark workload alternatives before standardizing a configuration because measurement of actual application behavior supports appropriate performance trade-offs; it is not as direct as Sustainability pillar for the actual requirement to minimize environmental impact associated with running workloads.

Multi-AZ redundancy addresses the separate need to avoid tying service availability to one Availability Zone because deploying suitable redundant resources in multiple AZs isolates many facility-level failures; it is not as direct as Sustainability pillar for the actual requirement to minimize environmental impact associated with running workloads.

Cost optimization pillar addresses the separate need to avoid unnecessary expenditure while achieving business outcomes because cost optimization focuses on understanding spend and delivering value at the right cost; it is not as direct as Sustainability pillar for the actual requirement to minimize environmental impact associated with running workloads.

AWS Cloud Adoption Framework (AWS CAF) is intended to structure the organizational changes needed for cloud adoption because AWS CAF organizes transformation capabilities into Business, People, Governance, Platform, Security and Operations perspectives; in this design the new outcome is to connect cloud adoption to business outcomes and investment decisions, which calls for AWS CAF Business perspective rather than AWS Cloud Adoption Framework (AWS CAF) or the earlier AWS CAF Governance perspective.

AWS CAF Governance perspective primarily supports the earlier need to manage transformation risks, priorities and portfolio decisions because the Governance perspective addresses decision-making, program oversight and value management, but the new task is to connect cloud adoption to business outcomes and investment decisions; that is why AWS CAF Business perspective is preferable here.

Retire is intended to remove an application that no longer delivers sufficient business value because retirement eliminates unneeded systems from the future estate; in this design the new outcome is to connect cloud adoption to business outcomes and investment decisions, which calls for AWS CAF Business perspective rather than Retire or the earlier AWS CAF Governance perspective.

Resource tagging for accountability addresses the separate need to attribute cloud spending to teams and projects because consistent resource tags support reporting and ownership when activated for cost allocation; it is not as direct as Capital expenditure (CapEx) for the actual requirement to recognize upfront infrastructure purchase as a fixed investment.

Rightsizing addresses the separate need to remove overprovisioning based on workload measurements because rightsizing matches compute or storage capacity to real demand and performance needs; it is not as direct as Capital expenditure (CapEx) for the actual requirement to recognize upfront infrastructure purchase as a fixed investment.

Cost visibility addresses the separate need to understand resource expenses before changing deployment decisions because cost reporting and allocation tools can reveal spend drivers that are less apparent in a shared data center; it is not as direct as Capital expenditure (CapEx) for the actual requirement to recognize upfront infrastructure purchase as a fixed investment.

Operational excellence pillar is intended to improve how teams operate, monitor and continually refine workloads because operational excellence focuses on delivering business value through effective operations and continuous learning; in this design the new outcome is to reduce the blast radius and rollback effort of deployments, which calls for Small reversible changes rather than Operational excellence pillar or the earlier Design for failure.

Design for failure primarily supports the earlier need to plan for individual components or zones becoming unavailable because resilient cloud designs anticipate disruption and use isolation and recovery behavior, but the new task is to reduce the blast radius and rollback effort of deployments; that is why Small reversible changes is preferable here.

Security pillar is intended to protect information, systems and assets using risk-aware controls because the security pillar addresses identities, detection, infrastructure and data protection, and incident response; in this design the new outcome is to reduce the blast radius and rollback effort of deployments, which calls for Small reversible changes rather than Security pillar or the earlier Design for failure.

Scalability is intended to support larger workloads by adding capacity as requirements grow because scalability is the ability of a system to handle growth by increasing resources or distributing work; in this design the new outcome is to repeat routine resource provisioning with fewer manual variations, which calls for Automation consistency rather than Scalability or the earlier Agility.

Elasticity is intended to increase and decrease capacity in response to changing demand because elasticity matches provisioned resources to workload demand, allowing capacity to contract after a spike; in this design the new outcome is to repeat routine resource provisioning with fewer manual variations, which calls for Automation consistency rather than Elasticity or the earlier Agility.

Agility primarily supports the earlier need to experiment and deploy new ideas without a long hardware procurement cycle because cloud agility shortens the time between a business idea and an available environment through on-demand provisioning, but the new task is to repeat routine resource provisioning with fewer manual variations; that is why Automation consistency is preferable here.

Agility primarily supports the earlier need to experiment and deploy new ideas without a long hardware procurement cycle because cloud agility shortens the time between a business idea and an available environment through on-demand provisioning, but the new task is to create an environment without waiting for physical equipment installation; that is why Self-service provisioning is preferable here.

Experimentation at low initial commitment is intended to test a prototype without large upfront infrastructure investment because usage-based provisioning enables limited experiments that can be shut down if unsuccessful; in this design the new outcome is to create an environment without waiting for physical equipment installation, which calls for Self-service provisioning rather than Experimentation at low initial commitment or the earlier Agility.

Geographic flexibility is intended to choose a physical deployment geography to address customers or regulatory constraints because AWS provides multiple Regions that can be selected for workloads and data; in this design the new outcome is to create an environment without waiting for physical equipment installation, which calls for Self-service provisioning rather than Geographic flexibility or the earlier Agility.

Capital expenditure (CapEx) is intended to recognize upfront infrastructure purchase as a fixed investment because capEx involves purchasing owned assets such as servers and data-center equipment before the benefits are consumed; in this design the new outcome is to compare the full cost of different infrastructure approaches, which calls for Total cost of ownership (TCO) rather than Capital expenditure (CapEx) or the earlier Automation of shutdown schedules.

Automation of shutdown schedules primarily supports the earlier need to avoid running nonproduction compute unnecessarily because scheduled automation can stop or remove eligible idle resources when they are not required, but the new task is to compare the full cost of different infrastructure approaches; that is why Total cost of ownership (TCO) is preferable here.

Economies of scale is intended to benefit from infrastructure purchasing and operations at provider scale because large cloud providers can spread infrastructure costs across broad demand and procurement volumes; in this design the new outcome is to compare the full cost of different infrastructure approaches, which calls for Total cost of ownership (TCO) rather than Economies of scale or the earlier Automation of shutdown schedules.

Frequent improvement loops is intended to use incidents and measurements to continually refine cloud operations because operational feedback informs changes to processes, thresholds and automation; in this design the new outcome is to improve how teams operate, monitor and continually refine workloads, which calls for Operational excellence pillar rather than Frequent improvement loops or the earlier Sustainability pillar.

Security pillar is intended to protect information, systems and assets using risk-aware controls because the security pillar addresses identities, detection, infrastructure and data protection, and incident response; in this design the new outcome is to improve how teams operate, monitor and continually refine workloads, which calls for Operational excellence pillar rather than Security pillar or the earlier Sustainability pillar.

Sustainability pillar primarily supports the earlier need to minimize environmental impact associated with running workloads because sustainability emphasizes efficient consumption and reduction of energy and resource waste, but the new task is to improve how teams operate, monitor and continually refine workloads; that is why Operational excellence pillar is preferable here.

AWS Schema Conversion Tool (AWS SCT) is intended to convert database schema and code for a heterogeneous database migration because AWS SCT helps transform schema objects and certain database code between supported engines; in this design the new outcome is to embed protection, risk practices and security capabilities into migration, which calls for AWS CAF Security perspective rather than AWS Schema Conversion Tool (AWS SCT) or the earlier AWS CAF Business perspective.

AWS Migration Hub is intended to track migration progress across applications and migration tools because migration Hub helps provide visibility across a portfolio's migration activity; in this design the new outcome is to embed protection, risk practices and security capabilities into migration, which calls for AWS CAF Security perspective rather than AWS Migration Hub or the earlier AWS CAF Business perspective.

AWS CAF Business perspective primarily supports the earlier need to connect cloud adoption to business outcomes and investment decisions because the Business perspective aligns cloud initiatives with strategy, value and commercial priorities, but the new task is to embed protection, risk practices and security capabilities into migration; that is why AWS CAF Security perspective is preferable here.

Cost allocation ownership addresses the separate need to make cloud expenditure traceable to a responsible department because accounts, tags and reports can help identify which teams or products generate spend; it is not as direct as Economies of scale for the actual requirement to benefit from infrastructure purchasing and operations at provider scale.

Automation of shutdown schedules addresses the separate need to avoid running nonproduction compute unnecessarily because scheduled automation can stop or remove eligible idle resources when they are not required; it is not as direct as Economies of scale for the actual requirement to benefit from infrastructure purchasing and operations at provider scale.

Bring Your Own License (BYOL) addresses the separate need to reuse eligible existing software licenses under applicable provider terms because bYOL can let a customer apply eligible licenses to suitable cloud deployments; it is not as direct as Economies of scale for the actual requirement to benefit from infrastructure purchasing and operations at provider scale.

Sustainability pillar addresses the separate need to minimize environmental impact associated with running workloads because sustainability emphasizes efficient consumption and reduction of energy and resource waste; it is not as direct as Security pillar for the actual requirement to protect information, systems and assets using risk-aware controls.

Automate recovery addresses the separate need to restore normal application behavior without waiting for routine manual intervention because automated detection and recovery reduce the time needed to handle predictable failure conditions; it is not as direct as Security pillar for the actual requirement to protect information, systems and assets using risk-aware controls.

Capacity awareness addresses the separate need to understand resource demand and quotas before workload demand exceeds limits because good reliability planning accounts for capacity needs and service quotas; it is not as direct as Security pillar for the actual requirement to protect information, systems and assets using risk-aware controls.