An administrator is performing a physical inventory audit and finds a server with "Oracle" branding on its chassis. The asset management database, however, lists the "Make" for that server's asset tag as "Sun Microsystems". For the purposes of accurate life-cycle management and future support requests, which of the following is the BEST course of action?
Change the 'Make' to 'Oracle' and delete any reference to 'Sun Microsystems' to avoid confusion.
Leave the 'Make' as 'Sun Microsystems' to maintain the historical accuracy of the original purchase.
Update the 'Make' to 'Oracle' and add a note to the record indicating it was an original Sun Microsystems asset.
Create a new asset record with 'Oracle' as the 'Make' and retire the record for the 'Sun Microsystems' asset.
The correct action is to update the 'Make' field to 'Oracle' and add a note about the original manufacturer. Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems, so for current life-cycle management, including drivers, support, and documentation, Oracle is the correct manufacturer (make). Retaining 'Sun Microsystems' as a note preserves historical information, which can be useful, but listing Oracle as the primary make is crucial for ongoing operational support. Simply leaving the old information is inaccurate for current support needs. Deleting the original make information loses valuable historical context. Creating a duplicate asset entry is incorrect as it represents a single physical device and would cause confusion in the inventory.