That result—STP topology is stable, with intentional root and port roles and no recurring MAC-flap or broadcast-storm indications—concerns spanning-tree loop prevention. Uncontrolled Ethernet loops replicate broadcasts and destabilize MAC learning; redundant links require a mechanism to block or logically aggregate unsafe cycles. It can be healthy even while the current central configuration audit problem remains.

Radio operation is constrained by regional rules, and an incorrect country or channel plan can prevent valid operation or break client support. The indicated result—the AP radio state uses legally permitted channels and clients connect under the intended local regulatory settings—checks a different mechanism and would not confirm the required central configuration audit outcome.

This would validate new Central scoped inheritance, not central configuration audit. New Central includes global, collection, site and device scopes; more specific applicable configuration can override broader inherited values. It is therefore insufficient acceptance evidence for the reported condition.

The alternative targets ACL deny versus service outage, where an ACL can block selected Layer 4 flows while other connectivity remains healthy; removing all controls is an unsafe shortcut. It does not establish the intended RADIUS accounting versus authorization behavior described in the scenario.

Client isolation can intentionally prevent peer-to-peer wireless communication despite successful association, addressing and external reachability. Check SSID client-isolation policy before changing routes or AP power. would address client isolation and peer access, but the reported facts instead point to RADIUS accounting versus authorization. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

That action—Compare OSPF area and interface parameters between the two peers—is relevant to OSPF neighbor area mismatch. OSPF requires compatible area identity, network type and essential adjacency parameters; IP reachability alone does not establish a neighbor. It does not correct the observed RADIUS accounting versus authorization condition.

Downlink strength from a powerful AP does not increase client transmit capability; asymmetric links and oversized cells can harm roaming. The indicated result—client RSSI, uplink quality and roaming measurements improve without creating coverage gaps—checks a different mechanism and would not confirm the required WLAN channel-width optimization outcome.

That result—Synthetic or real-user results show acceptable authentication, address acquisition, DNS and application response at representative sites—concerns client experience versus device uptime. Infrastructure availability is necessary but not sufficient for usable service; end-to-end user journeys expose service dependencies beyond device health. It can be healthy even while the current WLAN channel-width optimization problem remains.

This would validate high-density WLAN airtime optimization, not WLAN channel-width optimization. Wireless capacity depends on shared airtime and contention as well as signal quality; excessive power can enlarge overlap without adding usable spectrum. It is therefore insufficient acceptance evidence for the reported condition.

This would validate RADIUS service resilience, not 2.4 GHz interference planning. Identity services become campus availability dependencies; redundant switches cannot authenticate users when all RADIUS paths fail. It is therefore insufficient acceptance evidence for the reported condition.

That result—RF survey measurements show the desired coverage footprint and acceptable interference outside the targeted zone—concerns directional antenna selection. Directional gain shapes energy into target areas and can reduce unwanted spill, but a poorly aimed directional antenna creates coverage holes elsewhere. It can be healthy even while the current 2.4 GHz interference planning problem remains.

A higher RSSI does not remove contention; channel planning, cell sizing and client density are needed to increase effective capacity. The indicated result—the load test shows reduced channel utilization and improved client throughput at the documented peak concurrency—checks a different mechanism and would not confirm the required 2.4 GHz interference planning outcome.

That action—Design and verify independent VSX peer keepalive connectivity relative to the inter-switch link—is relevant to VSX keepalive isolation. Separate failure detection helps peers distinguish link disruption from peer loss, reducing the risk of harmful split-brain behavior. It does not correct the observed SVI inter-VLAN gateway condition.

The alternative targets spanning-tree loop prevention, where uncontrolled Ethernet loops replicate broadcasts and destabilize MAC learning; redundant links require a mechanism to block or logically aggregate unsafe cycles. It does not establish the intended SVI inter-VLAN gateway behavior described in the scenario.

Routes and interfaces are looked up within the relevant VRF; a default route in a different table cannot repair a missing path. Place the SVI and required routes in the correct VRF routing context. would address VRF route-context configuration, but the reported facts instead point to SVI inter-VLAN gateway. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

That result—The projected and tested peak traffic remains within the chosen uplink design's acceptable utilization and loss bounds—concerns uplink bandwidth capacity. Aggregate access capacity, application demand and supported congestion tolerance determine uplink sizing; port counts alone do not. It can be healthy even while the current access/distribution hierarchy problem remains.

This would validate high-density channel-width choice, not access/distribution hierarchy. Wider channels can raise peak link rates in isolation yet reduce the number of independent channels available in dense environments. It is therefore insufficient acceptance evidence for the reported condition.

Hardware redundancy is ineffective if every downstream path still depends on one forwarding node or unsound Layer 2 topology. The indicated result—a link or peer failure test keeps supported endpoint traffic forwarded over the surviving upstream path—checks a different mechanism and would not confirm the required access/distribution hierarchy outcome.

That action—Forward relevant device and security logs to an authorized central log collector—is relevant to syslog event centralization. Centralized time-stamped records preserve context for multi-device analysis and avoid relying on volatile local event buffers. It does not correct the observed port mirroring for packet capture condition.

The alternative targets certificate expiry monitoring, where healthy RF and RADIUS reachability cannot compensate for an expired or untrusted certificate that fails the authentication handshake. It does not establish the intended port mirroring for packet capture behavior described in the scenario.

Monitoring requires authorized protocol access and device-supported counters; the existence of a monitoring server alone produces no reliable telemetry. Configure supported SNMP monitoring and validate selected interface and system objects. would address SNMP monitoring scope, but the reported facts instead point to port mirroring for packet capture. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

The alternative targets high-density WLAN airtime optimization, where wireless capacity depends on shared airtime and contention as well as signal quality; excessive power can enlarge overlap without adding usable spectrum. It does not establish the intended transmit-power balance behavior described in the scenario.

That action—Reassess traffic mix and oversubscription ratio against measured peak uplink utilization—is relevant to uplink oversubscription tuning. Access port sum can greatly exceed distribution bandwidth, so congestion and burst tolerance must be planned rather than inferred from port speed labels. It does not correct the observed transmit-power balance condition.

Fast reliable handoff requires compatible client capabilities, adequate AP overlap and secure authentication continuity rather than just increasing bandwidth. Tune and validate supported roaming and reauthentication behavior for mobile voice clients. would address roaming voice latency, but the reported facts instead point to transmit-power balance. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

That action—Use appropriately separated 2.4 GHz channels and narrow channel widths for dense coverage—is relevant to 2.4 GHz interference planning. The 2.4 GHz band has limited nonoverlapping channel choices in typical regulatory domains, so channel overlap and wide channels intensify contention. It does not correct the observed uplink bandwidth capacity condition.

Two logical paths do not provide independent availability when they share a single cable route, power supply or upstream component. Identify shared failure domains and separate critical links, power and devices where feasible. would address failure-domain isolation, but the reported facts instead point to uplink bandwidth capacity. That change would leave the actual requirement unresolved.

The alternative targets VSF versus VSX platform planning, where VSF forms a virtual switch with supported stacking members; VSX coordinates two peers while retaining separate control planes, so support and failure domains differ. It does not establish the intended uplink bandwidth capacity behavior described in the scenario.

OSPF requires compatible area identity, network type and essential adjacency parameters; IP reachability alone does not establish a neighbor. The indicated result—both peers enter Full adjacency and exchange the expected route information—checks a different mechanism and would not confirm the required SVI down due to VLAN state outcome.

This would validate power-over-Ethernet failure, not SVI down due to VLAN state. A data VLAN or management group cannot correct a switch power budget that denies the PD enough electrical power. It is therefore insufficient acceptance evidence for the reported condition.

That result—Core routers learn the correct new prefix with an intended next hop and return traffic succeeds—concerns OSPF prefix advertisement omission. A healthy neighbor relationship does not imply every desired route is present; network statements, redistribution and policy can omit a prefix. It can be healthy even while the current SVI down due to VLAN state problem remains.

Authentication success is not the same as authorization; WLAN roles and VLAN selection determine where the user can forward traffic. The indicated result—the authenticated test client receives the expected role or VLAN and reaches only approved application destinations—checks a different mechanism and would not confirm the required dynamic role enforcement outcome.

This would validate LACP bundled links, not dynamic role enforcement. Aggregated links require compatible control and interface parameters; mismatched LACP or VLAN settings can prevent members from joining. It is therefore insufficient acceptance evidence for the reported condition.

That result—AP status confirms full required power mode and negotiated uplink speed without feature restrictions—concerns AP uplink power and negotiation. Wireless features depend on the wired uplink and power available to the AP; sufficient coverage does not prove the device is operating at full capacity. It can be healthy even while the current dynamic role enforcement problem remains.