Is the question specifically asking for the biggest risk, or could things like management complexity outweigh performance in some cases? That would change what I'd pick here.
I get where you're coming from, Jack. SAML autoprovisioning (JIT) kicks in only when users first authenticate via SAML, so if initial onboarding needs to be hands-off, D makes sense. Directory sync is good for bulk updates but doesn't catch users who join through SAML only. Pretty sure that's why SCIM plus SAML autoprovisioning is a better fit here, but correct me if I've misunderstood.
Had something like this in a mock and A was the answer there too. Forwarding Profile is mainly about managing how ZCC should react if DTLS fails, so fallback from UDP to TCP (DTLS to TLS) is key. The other options are more about PAC files which aren't Forwarding Profile settings. Pretty sure it's A but open to correction if someone has seen different behavior.
I don't think it's D, since D talks about TLS tunnel fallback, but the Forwarding Profile specifically sets up what happens if DTLS fails (which is usually falling back to TLS anyway). So A makes more sense here. Some folks might confuse the TLS and DTLS parts!
Had something like this in a mock. ZIA evaluates policies from top to bottom, so you need the exception (bypass) rule above the generic inspect-all one. If you put the catch-all first, nothing else gets a chance to match. Pretty sure that's the logic here but let me know if I missed something.