Eight domains, weighted to the official blueprint, so a 53-item drill has the same shape as the real exam.
CCDV-F reports on a scaled range of 100–1000 with a cut at 720, and its questions are distributed across 8 domains by published weight rather than evenly. Those weights are the single most useful thing in the exam guide: they tell you where the marks are, and they rarely match where candidates spend their time.
| Domain | Share of exam | Approx. questions |
|---|---|---|
| Domain 1 — Agents and Workflows | 14.7% | 8 |
| Domain 2 — Applications and Integration | 33.1% | 18 |
| Domain 3 — Claude Code | 3.1% | 2 |
| Domain 4 — Eval, Testing, and Debugging | 2.6% | 1 |
| Domain 5 — Model Selection and Optimization | 16.8% | 9 |
| Domain 6 — Prompt and Context Engineering | 11.0% | 6 |
| Domain 7 — Security and Safety | 8.1% | 4 |
| Domain 8 — Tools and MCPs | 10.6% | 6 |
Applications and Integration is the heaviest at 33.1% — roughly 18 of the 53 questions. Weakness there costs more than weakness anywhere else, which is exactly what a flat percentage score hides and what a blueprint-weighted estimate surfaces.
Our CCDV-F bank holds 400 original items across 24 objectives, each with an explanation and a note on every option — why the right answer is right, and why each distractor fails. Items are written against the published objectives. None is recalled or reproduced from a live exam.
A drill allocates questions by the published domain weights, multiplied by how far your measured mastery sits below standard. So a domain worth 33% of the exam that you are weak in dominates your next sitting, while one you have already mastered drops back to an exposure floor that keeps its estimate current.
A 20-item diagnostic for CCDV-F, spread across objectives rather than taken off the top, so the sample reflects the shape of the exam. It produces a first readiness estimate and full explanations, whether or not you go on to buy.