Transmission reliability insight: Whenever information is transmitted from one digital device to another, what is a realistic possibility that systems must plan for?

Introduction / Context:
Digital communication channels—wired or wireless—are susceptible to noise, interference, attenuation, and synchronization issues. Practical protocols assume a non-zero probability of corruption and incorporate mechanisms to detect (and often correct) errors. This question asks you to identify the realistic condition that robust systems always consider.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Physical channels are imperfect; bit flips and frame errors can occur.
• Noise and interference vary with environment and hardware quality.
• Protocols typically include parity, checksums, CRCs, and possibly FEC.

Concept / Approach:
Engineering for reliability means acknowledging that errors may happen and designing layers to detect and manage them. Error *detection* methods (parity, checksums, CRC) flag corrupted data for retransmission. Error *correction* codes (Hamming, Reed–Solomon, LDPC) can repair certain errors without retransmission. Higher layers add sequence control, acknowledgments, and timeouts.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Measure packet error rates on real links; even high-quality links show occasional errors. Protocol standards (Ethernet, Wi-Fi, LTE) all include robust error-detection/correction features, proving the engineering consensus.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Relying on raw links without integrity checks; assuming testbench perfection translates to field reliability; ignoring synchronization and clock recovery issues.

Final Answer:
Errors will occur (non-zero probability) and must be detected