# AZ-305 Design Coverage Checklist: [Candidate name]

> Study plan and design coverage checklist for Microsoft exam AZ-305,
> Designing Microsoft Azure Infrastructure Solutions, the exam for the
> Microsoft Certified: Azure Solutions Architect Expert certification.
> It maps every "design" subgroup of the skills measured (as of 17 April
> 2026) to a design record you write for a sample workload and to the
> library template that practises it, then tracks a self-rating, a lab
> log, practice results, a weak-area plan and renewal. Skill area names
> and weights follow the official Microsoft Learn study guide as checked
> on 2026-10-23; all other text is original. Replace every `[bracketed]`
> value and every row marked *Example*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Keep one copy per candidate and per exam attempt. Confirm the "skills
  measured as of" date on the official study guide before you start and
  again before you book: Microsoft updates the English exam first and
  other languages about eight weeks later.
- AZ-305 tests design judgement: picking the Azure service and
  configuration that best meets stated requirements and constraints. The
  most effective practice is to write short design records (section 3)
  that compare at least two options against the Azure Well-Architected
  Framework pillars, for one sample workload carried through the whole
  plan.
- Check the prerequisite (section 1): passing AZ-305 alone does not award
  the Expert certification.
- Do not copy exam questions or share exam content: the Microsoft exam
  agreement forbids it. Write your own notes.
- Related documents: Azure Well-Architected Review
  (`architecture/azure-well-architected-review`), Landing Zone Design
  (`architecture/landing-zone-design`), AWS Solutions Architect Exam
  Coverage Map (`architecture/aws-solutions-architect-coverage`), Google
  PCA Case Study Workbook (`architecture/google-pca-case-study-workbook`).
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Identify the candidate, the skills-measured version and the dates that drive the plan. A new skills-measured date is a new major version of this document. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [CERT-AZ305-001] |
| Candidate | [Name], [@handle] |
| Target exam | AZ-305: Designing Microsoft Azure Infrastructure Solutions |
| Skills measured version | As of 17 April 2026 (checked YYYY-MM-DD) |
| Prerequisite status | [Azure Administrator Associate held since YYYY-MM-DD / In progress] |
| Target exam date | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Exam language | [English / other: note the localisation lag] |
| Study budget | [n] hours over [n] weeks |
| Sample workload used for practice | [Workload name, for example a customer portal with a relational database, document storage and an analytics feed] |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Planning / Studying / Booked / Passed / Retake planned] |
| Owner | [@candidate] |
| Approvers/reviewers | [@mentor], [@manager] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Personal / Internal] |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate | [@name] | [Plan agreed] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Mentor or study lead | [@name] | [Reviewed] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Manager (training budget) | [@name] | [Approved / Not required] | YYYY-MM-DD |

### Revision history

| Version | Date | Author | Change summary |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | Plan created from the skills measured as of 17 April 2026 |
| 0.2 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | *Example:* First self-rating and twelve design records added |
| 1.0 | YYYY-MM-DD | [@name] | *Example:* Exam passed; renewal date recorded |

## Contents

1. [Certification path and exam facts](#1-certification-path-and-exam-facts)
2. [Skill areas, weights and study allocation](#2-skill-areas-weights-and-study-allocation)
3. [Design record method](#3-design-record-method)
4. [Design identity, governance, and monitoring solutions](#4-design-identity-governance-and-monitoring-solutions)
5. [Design data storage solutions](#5-design-data-storage-solutions)
6. [Design business continuity solutions](#6-design-business-continuity-solutions)
7. [Design infrastructure solutions](#7-design-infrastructure-solutions)
8. [Well-Architected and Cloud Adoption Framework alignment](#8-well-architected-and-cloud-adoption-framework-alignment)
9. [Skills self-rating and readiness](#9-skills-self-rating-and-readiness)
10. [Hands-on lab log](#10-hands-on-lab-log)
11. [Practice results and error analysis](#11-practice-results-and-error-analysis)
12. [Weak-area plan and schedule](#12-weak-area-plan-and-schedule)
13. [Exam day, result and renewal](#13-exam-day-result-and-renewal)
14. [Glossary and references](#14-glossary-and-references)

## 1. Certification path and exam facts

<!-- Guidance: Record the path to the Expert certification and the facts you will plan around, from Microsoft Learn only. Recheck at booking. Pitfall: passing AZ-305 without the prerequisite and assuming the Expert badge follows. -->

### 1.1 Certification path

| Item | Rule (checked 2026-10-23) | Your status |
|---|---|---|
| Certification | Microsoft Certified: Azure Solutions Architect Expert | [Target] |
| Required exam | AZ-305: Designing Microsoft Azure Infrastructure Solutions | [Booked / Not booked] |
| Prerequisite certification | Microsoft Certified: Azure Administrator Associate (earned through exam AZ-104) | [Held / In progress] |
| Order | The Expert certification is awarded when both the prerequisite and AZ-305 are in place; check the certification page for how it is granted | [Plan] |

```mermaid
flowchart LR
  A["AZ-104 exam"] --> B["Azure Administrator Associate"]
  C["AZ-305 exam"] --> D["Azure Solutions Architect Expert"]
  B --> D
  D --> E["Annual renewal assessment (free, online)"]
```

### 1.2 Exam facts

| Fact | Value (checked 2026-10-23) | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Skills measured version | As of 17 April 2026 | AZ-305 study guide |
| Passing score | 700 or greater | Study guide, exam scoring link |
| Localisation | English updated first; localised versions about eight weeks later | Study guide, updates section |
| Extra time | 30 additional minutes can be requested if the exam is not offered in your preferred language | Study guide |
| Feature scope | Mostly generally available features; commonly used preview features may appear | Study guide |
| Languages listed | English, Japanese, Chinese (Simplified), Korean, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese (Brazil), Chinese (Traditional), Italian | Certification page |
| Practice | Free practice assessment and exam sandbox available on Microsoft Learn | Study guide |
| Duration, question count, price | Check the exam page and the exam provider at booking; price varies by country | Exam page |

### 1.3 Role expectations

The study guide describes the role as advising stakeholders and turning business requirements into Azure designs that align with the Azure Well-Architected Framework and the Cloud Adoption Framework for Azure, with advanced knowledge of networking, virtualisation, identity, security, business continuity, disaster recovery, data platforms and governance, and experience with Azure administration, Azure development and DevOps processes. Use this as the self-check before you start: if Azure administration is new to you, finish AZ-104 preparation first.

## 2. Skill areas, weights and study allocation

<!-- Guidance: Allocate hours by weight, using the midpoint of each published range, then adjust by your gap from section 9. Recompute totals after changes. Pitfall: spending most time on infrastructure because it is the largest area, while identity and governance (also heavily weighted) stays weak. -->

### 2.1 Skill areas

| Area | Name | Published weight | Midpoint | Subgroups | Base hours *(Example: 80-hour budget)* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Design identity, governance, and monitoring solutions | 25 to 30% | 27.5% | 3 | 22 |
| B | Design data storage solutions | 20 to 25% | 22.5% | 3 | 18 |
| C | Design business continuity solutions | 15 to 20% | 17.5% | 2 | 14 |
| D | Design infrastructure solutions | 30 to 35% | 32.5% | 4 | 26 |
| | Total | | 100% | 12 | 80 |

The midpoints sum to exactly 100%, so base hours are budget x midpoint: 80 x 0.275 = 22, 80 x 0.225 = 18, 80 x 0.175 = 14 and 80 x 0.325 = 26.

### 2.2 Gap-adjusted allocation

Adjusted hours for an area = budget x (midpoint x gap) / sum of (midpoint x gap), where gap = 4 minus the area self-rating from section 9.

*Example* with self-ratings A 2.0, B 3.0, C 2.5 and D 3.0: gaps 2.0, 1.0, 1.5 and 1.0; midpoint x gap gives 0.55, 0.225, 0.2625 and 0.325, summing to 1.3625. With 80 hours: A 32.3, B 13.2, C 15.4, D 19.1, which round to 32, 13, 15 and 19 (79); give the spare hour to C, the weakest area after A, so the total stays 80 (32, 13, 16, 19).

| Area | Midpoint | Self-rating | Gap | Midpoint x gap | Adjusted hours |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A *(Example)* | 0.275 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.55 | 32 |
| B *(Example)* | 0.225 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.225 | 13 |
| C *(Example)* | 0.175 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.2625 | 16 |
| D *(Example)* | 0.325 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 0.325 | 19 |
| Total | 1.00 | | | 1.3625 | 80 |

## 3. Design record method

<!-- Guidance: A design record is a half-page decision note for one skill subgroup on the sample workload. Write one per row in sections 4 to 7. Questions: what requirement drives the choice? Which two or three services are credible? Which pillar trade-off decides it? Pitfall: writing a service description instead of a decision. -->

### 3.1 Design record format

Use this format for every record. Keep the records in one folder; they become your revision notes.

| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Record ID | DR-[area letter]-NNN, for example DR-A-001 |
| Subgroup and task | Section and row in this document |
| Requirement | The stated need, with numbers (users, RTO, RPO, latency, data volume, compliance) |
| Constraints | Budget, skills, existing estate, region, licensing |
| Options | At least two Azure services or configurations |
| Decision | The chosen option and its configuration (tier, redundancy, region pairing) |
| Pillar trade-off | Which Well-Architected pillar wins and which pays (section 8) |
| Rejected because | One line per rejected option |
| Evidence | Lab ID (section 10) or reference page |

### 3.2 Worked design record *(Example)*

| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Record ID | DR-B-001 |
| Subgroup and task | 5.1, relational data storage and service tier |
| Requirement | Customer portal database, 400 GB, growing 15 GB per month; 2,000 peak concurrent sessions; RPO 5 minutes, RTO 1 hour; SQL Server features used: cross-database queries and SQL Agent jobs |
| Constraints | Team has SQL Server skills; minimal application change; budget limits zone-redundant premium tiers to production |
| Options | Azure SQL Database (single database); Azure SQL Managed Instance; SQL Server on Azure Virtual Machines |
| Decision | Azure SQL Managed Instance, General Purpose, in the primary region with a failover group to the paired region |
| Pillar trade-off | Operational Excellence and Reliability gain from a managed service; Cost Optimization pays more than for a single database |
| Rejected because | Single database lacks the cross-database and agent features the application uses; virtual machines add patching and HA work the team cannot staff |
| Evidence | LAB-004 |

## 4. Design identity, governance, and monitoring solutions

<!-- Guidance: Weight 25 to 30%. Practise designs that span tenants, subscriptions and hybrid estates. Questions: where do logs go and for how long? Who can do what, and how is that granted and reviewed? Pitfall: treating identity as a list of features rather than a design for joiners, movers, leavers and privileged access. -->

Task areas are paraphrased; read the full bullet list in the official study guide.

### 4.1 Logging and monitoring

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logging design | DR-A-001 | Observability Specification (`ops/observability-spec`) | Log Analytics workspaces (one or many), retention and archive tiers, data collection rules | [n] |
| Routing of logs | DR-A-002 | Observability Specification (`ops/observability-spec`) | Diagnostic settings to workspace, storage account or Event Hubs; export to a third-party SIEM | [n] |
| Monitoring design | DR-A-003 | Azure Well-Architected Review (`architecture/azure-well-architected-review`) | Azure Monitor metrics and alerts, Application Insights, workbooks, action groups | [n] |

### 4.2 Authentication and authorisation

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication | DR-A-004 | IAM Solution Design (`security/iam-solution-design`) | Microsoft Entra ID, multifactor authentication, Conditional Access, external identities, passwordless methods | [n] |
| Identity management | DR-A-005 | IAM Solution Design (`security/iam-solution-design`) | Entra Connect or cloud sync for hybrid identity, managed identities, workload identities | [n] |
| Authorising access to Azure resources | DR-A-006 | Zero Trust Architecture Plan (`security/zero-trust-architecture`) | Azure RBAC built-in and custom roles, scope design, Privileged Identity Management | [n] |
| Authorising access to on-premises resources | DR-A-007 | Hybrid and Multicloud Architecture (`architecture/hybrid-multicloud-architecture`) | Entra application proxy, Entra Private Access, Azure Arc with RBAC | [n] |
| Secrets, certificates and keys | DR-A-008 | PKI and Certificate Architecture (`security/pki-certificate-architecture`) | Key Vault (standard and premium), Managed HSM, key rotation, certificate renewal | [n] |

### 4.3 Governance

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management group, subscription and resource group structure, and tagging | DR-A-009 | Landing Zone Design (`architecture/landing-zone-design`) | Management group hierarchy, subscription per workload and environment, tag policy and inheritance | [n] |
| Compliance management | DR-A-010 | Cloud Security Reference Patterns (`security/cloud-security-reference-patterns`) | Azure Policy initiatives and effects, Microsoft Defender for Cloud regulatory compliance | [n] |
| Identity governance | DR-A-011 | Access Review (`ops/access-review`) | Entra ID Governance access reviews, entitlement management, lifecycle workflows, PIM | [n] |

## 5. Design data storage solutions

<!-- Guidance: Weight 20 to 25%. For each data type, decide service, tier, scale method and protection. Questions: what are the access patterns and consistency needs? What does a tier change cost? Pitfall: picking a premium tier by default and never justifying it. -->

### 5.1 Relational data

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relational storage choice | DR-B-001 | Database Design (`architecture/database-design`) | SQL Database, SQL Managed Instance, SQL Server on VMs, Azure Database for PostgreSQL and MySQL | [n] |
| Service tier and compute tier | DR-B-002 | Database Design (`architecture/database-design`) | DTU versus vCore, General Purpose, Business Critical, Hyperscale, serverless compute | [n] |
| Database scalability | DR-B-003 | Capacity Plan (`ops/capacity-plan`) | Scale up, read scale-out, elastic pools, sharding | [n] |
| Data protection | DR-B-004 | Security Architecture (`security/security-architecture`) | Transparent data encryption with customer-managed keys, Always Encrypted, auditing, dynamic data masking | [n] |

### 5.2 Semi-structured and unstructured data

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semi-structured storage | DR-B-005 | Database Design (`architecture/database-design`) | Azure Cosmos DB APIs and consistency levels, Table storage | [n] |
| Unstructured storage | DR-B-006 | Infrastructure Design (`architecture/infrastructure-design`) | Blob Storage, Data Lake Storage, Azure Files, Azure NetApp Files | [n] |
| Balancing features, performance and cost | DR-B-007 | FinOps Cost Review (`ops/finops-cost-review`) | Access tiers (hot, cool, cold, archive), lifecycle management, performance tiers | [n] |
| Protection and durability | DR-B-008 | Backup and Restore Procedure (`ops/backup-restore-procedure`) | Redundancy options (LRS, ZRS, GRS, GZRS), soft delete, versioning, immutability | [n] |

### 5.3 Data integration

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data integration | DR-B-009 | Data Platform Architecture (`architecture/data-platform-architecture`), Streaming Solution Design (`architecture/streaming-solution-design`) | Data Factory, Microsoft Fabric pipelines, Event Hubs, Stream Analytics | [n] |
| Data analysis | DR-B-010 | Analytics and BI Solution Design (`architecture/analytics-bi-solution-design`) | Microsoft Fabric, Azure Databricks, Azure Synapse Analytics, Power BI | [n] |

## 6. Design business continuity solutions

<!-- Guidance: Weight 15 to 20%. Every record starts from RTO and RPO per tier. Questions: which failures must the design survive (zone, region, deletion, ransomware)? How is recovery tested? Pitfall: confusing high availability (staying up through a failure) with backup (getting data back after loss). -->

### 6.1 Backup and disaster recovery

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recovery design for Azure and hybrid workloads to meet objectives | DR-C-001 | Resilience Tiering and HA/DR Design (`architecture/resilience-tiering-ha-dr-design`), Disaster Recovery Plan (`ops/disaster-recovery-plan`) | Azure Site Recovery, cross-region restore, active-passive and active-active patterns | [n] |
| Backup and recovery for compute | DR-C-002 | Backup and Restore Procedure (`ops/backup-restore-procedure`) | Azure Backup for VMs, vault types, immutable vaults, Site Recovery for VMs | [n] |
| Backup and recovery for databases | DR-C-003 | Disaster Recovery Plan (`ops/disaster-recovery-plan`) | Automated backups and point-in-time restore, long-term retention, geo-restore, failover groups | [n] |
| Backup and recovery for unstructured data | DR-C-004 | Backup and Restore Procedure (`ops/backup-restore-procedure`) | Operational and vaulted blob backup, Azure Files backup, object replication | [n] |

### 6.2 High availability

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HA for compute | DR-C-005 | Resilience Tiering and HA/DR Design (`architecture/resilience-tiering-ha-dr-design`) | Availability zones, Virtual Machine Scale Sets, zone-redundant App Service and AKS node pools | [n] |
| HA for relational data | DR-C-006 | Database Design (`architecture/database-design`) | Zone-redundant configuration, Business Critical replicas, active geo-replication, failover groups | [n] |
| HA for semi-structured and unstructured data | DR-C-007 | Resilience and Load Shedding Design (`system-design/resilience-load-shedding-design`) | Cosmos DB multi-region writes, zone and geo-redundant storage, read access to secondary | [n] |

### 6.3 Recovery tier worked example *(Example)*

| Tier | Workload | RTO | RPO | Design | Annual test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Customer portal web and API | 1 hour | 5 minutes | Zone-redundant compute; failover group for the database; Front Door routing to the secondary region | Regional failover drill twice a year |
| 2 | Reporting | 8 hours | 24 hours | Daily backup with geo-redundant vault; redeploy from IaC | Restore test once a year |
| 3 | Archive documents | 72 hours | 24 hours | GZRS storage with immutability policy | Sample restore quarterly |

## 7. Design infrastructure solutions

<!-- Guidance: Weight 30 to 35%, the largest area. Practise compute, application, migration and network choices on the sample workload. Questions: what is the unit of scale? What runs on events, on schedules, or all the time? Pitfall: choosing Kubernetes for every workload regardless of team skills and operating cost. -->

### 7.1 Compute

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specifying compute components from requirements | DR-D-001 | Infrastructure Design (`architecture/infrastructure-design`) | Decision by control, scale, startup time and cost | [n] |
| VM-based design | DR-D-002 | Infrastructure Design (`architecture/infrastructure-design`) | VM series, Scale Sets, Azure Dedicated Host, Azure Virtual Desktop | [n] |
| Container-based design | DR-D-003 | Platform Golden Path (`architecture/platform-golden-path`) | AKS, Azure Container Apps, Azure Container Instances, App Service containers | [n] |
| Serverless design | DR-D-004 | Event-Driven Architecture Design (`architecture/event-driven-architecture-design`) | Azure Functions hosting plans, Logic Apps | [n] |
| Batch processing | DR-D-005 | Job Scheduler Design (`system-design/design-job-scheduler`) | Azure Batch, Container Apps jobs, Functions with queues | [n] |

### 7.2 Application architecture

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Messaging | DR-D-006 | Message Queue Design (`system-design/design-message-queue`) | Service Bus queues and topics, Storage queues | [n] |
| Event-driven design | DR-D-007 | Event-Driven Architecture Design (`architecture/event-driven-architecture-design`) | Event Grid, Event Hubs, change feeds | [n] |
| API integration | DR-D-008 | API Management Platform Design (`architecture/api-management-platform-design`) | API Management tiers and gateways, Logic Apps connectors | [n] |
| Caching | DR-D-009 | Distributed Cache Design (`system-design/design-distributed-cache`) | Azure Managed Redis, Front Door caching, application-level caching | [n] |
| Configuration management | DR-D-010 | Config and Feature Flag Service Design (`system-design/design-config-feature-flag-service`) | App Configuration with feature flags, Key Vault references | [n] |
| Automated deployment | DR-D-011 | Deployment Runbook (`ops/deployment-runbook`), Platform Golden Path (`architecture/platform-golden-path`) | Bicep or Terraform, GitHub Actions or Azure Pipelines, deployment slots, blue-green and canary | [n] |

### 7.3 Migrations

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Migration approach using the Cloud Adoption Framework | DR-D-012 | Cloud Adoption Strategy (`architecture/cloud-adoption-strategy`), Migration Wave Plan (`project/migration-wave-plan`) | CAF phases, migration waves, landing zone readiness | [n] |
| Assessing servers, data and applications | DR-D-013 | Application Migration Assessment (`architecture/application-migration-assessment`) | Azure Migrate discovery and assessment, dependency analysis, business case | [n] |
| Migrating workloads to IaaS and PaaS | DR-D-014 | Modernization Assessment (`architecture/modernization-assessment`) | Azure Migrate server migration, App Service migration assistant, rehost versus replatform | [n] |
| Migrating databases | DR-D-015 | Data Migration Strategy (`architecture/data-migration-strategy`) | Azure Database Migration Service, online versus offline, native backup and restore | [n] |
| Migrating unstructured data | DR-D-016 | Data Migration Strategy (`architecture/data-migration-strategy`) | AzCopy, Azure Data Box family, Azure File Sync, Storage Mover | [n] |

### 7.4 Network

| Task area (paraphrase) | Design record | Practise with (library template) | Services and options to compare | Rating (0-4) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Internet connectivity | DR-D-017 | Network Architecture Design (`architecture/network-architecture-design`) | Public IPs, NAT Gateway, Front Door, Application Gateway with WAF | [n] |
| On-premises connectivity | DR-D-018 | Network Architecture Design (`architecture/network-architecture-design`), Hybrid and Multicloud Architecture (`architecture/hybrid-multicloud-architecture`) | VPN Gateway, ExpressRoute, Virtual WAN, hub-and-spoke | [n] |
| Network performance | DR-D-019 | Performance Test Plan (`quality/performance-test-plan`) | Accelerated networking, proximity placement groups, ExpressRoute FastPath, region placement | [n] |
| Network security | DR-D-020 | Zero Trust Architecture Plan (`security/zero-trust-architecture`) | Network security groups, Azure Firewall, Private Link and private endpoints, DDoS Protection | [n] |
| Load balancing and routing | DR-D-021 | Network Architecture Design (`architecture/network-architecture-design`) | Load Balancer, Application Gateway, Front Door, Traffic Manager; global versus regional, layer 4 versus layer 7 | [n] |

### 7.5 Coverage check

| Area | Task rows | Design records written | Records with a lab | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A *(Example)* | 11 | 6 | 4 | 55% |
| B *(Example)* | 10 | 8 | 5 | 80% |
| C *(Example)* | 7 | 3 | 2 | 43% |
| D *(Example)* | 21 | 14 | 9 | 67% |
| Total *(Example)* | 49 | 31 | 20 | 63% |

## 8. Well-Architected and Cloud Adoption Framework alignment

<!-- Guidance: The study guide frames the role around the Azure Well-Architected Framework and the Cloud Adoption Framework. Tag every design record with the pillar it optimises and the pillar that pays. Pitfall: claiming a design improves every pillar at once; real choices trade one against another. -->

### 8.1 Pillar tagging

| Pillar | Typical exam trade-off to practise | Design records tagged |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability | Zone or region redundancy versus cost and complexity | [DR-C-001, DR-C-006] |
| Security | Private endpoints and customer-managed keys versus operational effort | [DR-A-008, DR-D-020] |
| Cost Optimization | Reserved capacity, serverless and lower tiers versus performance headroom | [DR-B-007, DR-D-004] |
| Operational Excellence | Managed services and IaC versus control and customisation | [DR-B-001, DR-D-011] |
| Performance Efficiency | Caching, scale-out and placement versus consistency and cost | [DR-D-009, DR-D-019] |

For a full review of a real workload against the five pillars, use Azure Well-Architected Review (`architecture/azure-well-architected-review`).

### 8.2 Cloud Adoption Framework touchpoints

| CAF phase | Where it appears in AZ-305 practice | Related record |
|---|---|---|
| Strategy and Plan | Business case and migration assessment | DR-D-012, DR-D-013 |
| Ready | Landing zone, management groups and subscriptions | DR-A-009 |
| Adopt | Migration and modernisation choices | DR-D-014 to DR-D-016 |
| Govern | Policy and compliance | DR-A-010 |
| Secure | Identity, keys and network security | DR-A-004 to DR-A-008, DR-D-020 |
| Manage | Monitoring, backup and recovery | DR-A-001 to DR-A-003, section 6 |

## 9. Skills self-rating and readiness

<!-- Guidance: Rate each task row in sections 4 to 7 on the scale below, using evidence. Average the rows per area and compute readiness. Pitfall: rating from reading alone; a 3 needs a design record and a lab. -->

| Rating | Meaning | Evidence required |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Not familiar | None |
| 1 | Can explain the services | Notes |
| 2 | Can choose between options in a simple case | Practice questions above 60% |
| 3 | Has written the design record and built a lab | Record and lab ID |
| 4 | Can defend the trade-off under changed constraints and teach it | Peer-reviewed record, practice above 85% |

Readiness = sum over areas of midpoint weight x (area average rating / 4).

*Example* with area averages A 2.0, B 3.0, C 2.5 and D 3.0: 0.275 x 0.5 = 0.1375; 0.225 x 0.75 = 0.16875; 0.175 x 0.625 = 0.109375; 0.325 x 0.75 = 0.24375. Readiness = 0.659375, about 66%.

| Date | A average | B average | C average | D average | Readiness | Booking threshold *(Example)* | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YYYY-MM-DD *(Example)* | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.5 | 3.0 | 66% | 80% and practice assessment at or above 80% | Not ready: follow section 12 |
| [YYYY-MM-DD] | [n] | [n] | [n] | [n] | [%] | [Threshold] | [Decision] |

The booking threshold is a personal planning rule, not a Microsoft figure.

## 10. Hands-on lab log

<!-- Guidance: Build the decisions you record. Use a sandbox subscription with a budget alert, deploy with IaC where possible, and delete the resource group after each lab. Pitfall: labs that only click through a portal tutorial; change one design variable per lab and record the effect. -->

| Lab ID | Design records | Objective | Variation tried | Result and lesson | Cost | Cleaned up | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LAB-001 *(Example)* | DR-A-001, DR-A-002 | Central workspace with diagnostic settings from three services | Compared one workspace with per-environment workspaces | One workspace simplified queries; access was scoped with resource-context RBAC | USD 2 | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD |
| LAB-002 *(Example)* | DR-A-006 | Custom role with least privilege for operators | Built-in Contributor versus custom role | Custom role removed delete rights on key vaults | USD 0 | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD |
| LAB-003 *(Example)* | DR-A-009, DR-A-010 | Management group hierarchy with a deny policy for public IPs | Audit effect versus deny effect | Deny blocked a deployment; audit only reported it | USD 0 | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD |
| LAB-004 *(Example)* | DR-B-001, DR-C-006 | Managed instance failover group to the paired region | Planned versus forced failover | Forced failover risked data loss within the RPO; planned did not | USD 25 | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD |
| LAB-005 *(Example)* | DR-D-021 | Global routing with Front Door to two regional App Services | Front Door versus Traffic Manager | Front Door added caching and WAF at the edge; Traffic Manager was DNS only | USD 4 | Yes | YYYY-MM-DD |
| [LAB-NNN] | [Records] | [Objective] | [Variation] | [Lesson] | [USD] | [Yes / No] | YYYY-MM-DD |

Sandbox controls: a dedicated subscription under a sandbox management group, a budget alert at [USD amount], tags with the lab ID on every resource group, no real personal or customer data.

## 11. Practice results and error analysis

<!-- Guidance: Record each practice attempt and classify every wrong answer. Use the free Microsoft practice assessment and sources that write their own questions; never use leaked exam content. Pitfall: retaking one practice set until you memorise it. -->

### 11.1 Results

| Attempt ID | Date | Source | Score | Area A | Area B | Area C | Area D | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PX-001 *(Example)* | YYYY-MM-DD | Microsoft Learn practice assessment | 31 of 50 (62%) | 50% | 70% | 55% | 68% | Identity governance and DR choices weak |
| PX-002 *(Example)* | YYYY-MM-DD | [Practice provider, new set] | 81% | 78% | 85% | 80% | 82% | Ready to book after one more attempt |
| [PX-NNN] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Source] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [%] | [Notes] |

### 11.2 Error classification

| Cause | Meaning | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge gap | Did not know a service capability, tier feature or limit | Study and lab the row |
| Requirement missed | Ignored a constraint such as "minimise cost", "minimise administrative effort" or a compliance rule | Write the constraints down before reading options |
| Wrong layer | Picked a service at the wrong layer (for example DNS routing when layer 7 routing was needed) | Practise the comparison tables in section 7 |
| Preview or outdated knowledge | Relied on a retired or renamed service | Check current product names on Microsoft Learn |
| Time pressure | Rushed scenario-based items | Practise timed blocks |

| Attempt | Knowledge gap | Requirement missed | Wrong layer | Outdated | Time | Total wrong |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PX-001 *(Example)* | 8 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 19 (50 minus 31 correct) |
| [PX-NNN] | [n] | [n] | [n] | [n] | [n] | [n] |

## 12. Weak-area plan and schedule

<!-- Guidance: Choose the three to five rows with the largest weight x gap, give each a design record to write or rewrite, a lab and a retest date. Plan the weeks with a buffer before booking. Pitfall: an open-ended plan with no retest dates. -->

### 12.1 Weak areas

| Weak ID | Row | Area midpoint | Gap (4 minus rating) | Priority (midpoint x gap) | Action | Retest date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WK-001 *(Example)* | 4.3 identity governance (DR-A-011) | 0.275 | 3 | 0.825 | Write DR-A-011; lab access reviews and PIM activation | YYYY-MM-DD | Open |
| WK-002 *(Example)* | 6.1 recovery design (DR-C-001) | 0.175 | 3 | 0.525 | Write the tier table for the sample workload; lab Site Recovery | YYYY-MM-DD | Open |
| WK-003 *(Example)* | 7.4 load balancing and routing (DR-D-021) | 0.325 | 1 | 0.325 | Build a decision tree for the four services | YYYY-MM-DD | Open |
| [WK-NNN] | [Row] | [n] | [n] | [n] | [Action] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Status] |

### 12.2 Schedule

The *Example* plan covers the weakest area first, then works through the largest area, with a buffer week before the booked date.

```mermaid
gantt
  title AZ-305 study plan (Example)
  dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
  section Study
  Identity governance and monitoring :s1, 2026-11-02, 14d
  Business continuity                :s2, after s1, 10d
  Infrastructure                     :s3, after s2, 14d
  Data storage                       :s4, after s3, 10d
  section Readiness
  Practice and weak areas            :r1, after s4, 10d
  Buffer week                        :r2, after r1, 7d
  Exam                               :milestone, m1, after r2, 0d
```

## 13. Exam day, result and renewal

<!-- Guidance: Prepare the logistics, record the result without exam content, and diary the renewal window. Pitfall: missing the renewal window; Microsoft role-based certifications expire unless renewed. -->

### 13.1 Exam-day checklist

- [ ] Booked with a personal Microsoft account, as Microsoft recommends, so records stay with you if you change employer.
- [ ] Identification matches the profile name.
- [ ] For online delivery: system test passed, room and desk prepared.
- [ ] Extra-time accommodation requested in advance if the exam is not in your preferred language or you need an accommodation.
- [ ] Constraints-first reading technique practised; every question answered.

### 13.2 Result

| Date | Result | Score | Section feedback | Notes for next time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YYYY-MM-DD | [Pass / Fail] | [Score] | [Per skill area] | [Own notes, no exam content] |

### 13.3 Renewal

| Item | Rule (checked 2026-10-23) | Your date |
|---|---|---|
| Validity | Microsoft associate, expert and specialty certifications expire annually | Expires YYYY-MM-DD |
| Renewal | Pass a free online renewal assessment on Microsoft Learn, within the renewal window shown in your profile | Window opens YYYY-MM-DD |
| Prerequisite | Check the certification page for how the prerequisite is treated at renewal | [Notes] |

## 14. Glossary and references

<!-- Guidance: Keep references official and dated. Product names change often in Azure; verify every service name you write in a design record. -->

### 14.1 Glossary

| Term | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Skills measured | Microsoft's published outline of functional groups, weights and tasks for the exam |
| Functional group | One of the four weighted skill areas |
| Design record | Short decision note for one task row: requirement, options, decision, trade-off |
| WAF | Azure Well-Architected Framework, five pillars: Reliability, Security, Cost Optimization, Operational Excellence, Performance Efficiency |
| CAF | Cloud Adoption Framework for Azure |
| RTO and RPO | Maximum acceptable downtime, and maximum acceptable data loss in time |
| Paired region | Azure region paired with another in the same geography for platform recovery |
| Midpoint weight | Centre of a published weight range, used for planning only |

### 14.2 References

| Reference | Version or date checked | Use |
|---|---|---|
| Study guide for Exam AZ-305, learn.microsoft.com/credentials/certifications/resources/study-guides/az-305 | Skills measured as of 17 April 2026; checked 2026-10-23 | Areas, weights, subgroups, exam facts |
| Microsoft Certified: Azure Solutions Architect Expert, learn.microsoft.com/credentials/certifications/azure-solutions-architect | Page updated April 2026; checked 2026-10-23 | Prerequisite, required exam, languages, renewal |
| Azure Well-Architected Framework, learn.microsoft.com/azure/well-architected | Five pillars | Section 8 tagging |
| Cloud Adoption Framework for Azure, learn.microsoft.com/azure/cloud-adoption-framework | Current | Section 8.2 |
| Azure Architecture Center, learn.microsoft.com/azure/architecture | Current | Reference architectures for design records |

## Standard and licence note

Based on the public Microsoft Learn study guide for Exam AZ-305 (skills
measured as of 17 April 2026) and the Azure Solutions Architect Expert
certification page, as checked on 2026-10-23. Only the functional group
names, weights and subgroup names are used; task bullets are paraphrased
in original words and no study guide text beyond those names, and no
exam questions, are reproduced. This template is original text written
for this collection. Check the current official study guide before use,
because Microsoft updates the skills measured periodically. Microsoft,
Azure and Microsoft Entra are trademarks of their owners; this template
is not affiliated with or endorsed by them.
Template licence: MIT.