The key idea is that research involves human subjects when you either interact with people or collect information that can identify them. In this scenario, there is interaction with participants or identifiable private information, which means the research involves human subjects. If there’s no interaction and no identifiable information, it’s not human subjects research, because you’re not obtaining data about individuals in a way that can identify them. Data from public sources can still be about people, but without interaction or private identifiers it typically isn’t considered human subjects. Data that are anonymized remove identifiers, so the individuals are no longer identifiable, which also means they are not human subjects under standard definitions.

This item tests how overlapping effort across multiple grants is described when the total commitment exceeds a full-time workload. The correct term is commitment overlap, which happens when the sum of effort assigned to all awards for an individual goes beyond 100 percent of their available time. This signals overcommitment and raises compliance and reporting risks, since sponsors require accurate reflection of how much time is actually devoted to each award and may not permit exceeding 100 percent without approval. Schedule drift describes delays in project timelines, budget overrun refers to spending above the allocated budget, and a generic “personnel overlap” isn’t a standard grant-management term. To prevent commitment overlap, institutions track total effort across all awards, adjust allocations so the total does not exceed 100 percent, and obtain necessary approvals if any adjustments are required.

The key idea is identifiability. Under federal rules, research involving human subjects hinges on whether the information used can identify the person. If data are coded but the investigator has no access to the key that would link codes to identities, the investigator cannot identify individuals from the data. In that situation, the data are not identifiable to the researcher, so the activity isn’t considered human subjects research. If someone with the key could re-identify, or if the researcher later gains access to the key, the data could become identifiable and would then fall under human subjects research. But with no key access, the defined research activity isn’t about human subjects.

When unusual changes appear, the governance response is to evaluate whether they involve a change in scope. This matters because scope changes trigger the formal change-control process, requiring assessment of impact on schedule, budget, risks, and deliverables, plus stakeholder approvals and possible re-baselining. By confirming a scope change, you ensure the project stays aligned with objectives and governance policies, and that any adjustments go through the proper channels rather than being made informally. Waiting for the next annual review is too slow and bypasses the necessary checks. Increasing funding without a formal change request risks budget overruns and improper accounting. Terminating the project is an excessive reaction to intermediate changes and ignores the possibility of realigning scope and objectives through governance procedures.