Which of the following statement(s) is/are correct regarding code walk-through…

A code walkthrough is a static, manual verification technique used to check a program without executing it on a computer. In software-testing terminology, code-analysis techniques split into an informal branch (walkthroughs) and a formal branch (inspections): an informal walkthrough relies on the author guiding peers through the logic in a relatively unstructured meeting, whereas an inspection follows a fixed procedure with defined roles, checklists, and recorded metrics.

Applying this distinction here: Statement I calls the technique 'informal', which matches its definition directly, since a walkthrough is precisely the informal member of the pair of static code-analysis techniques. Statement II claims the review happens 'just before the coding of the module' - but a walkthrough cannot happen before any code exists: it is carried out only once a module has already been coded (typically after it compiles cleanly), so the team has actual source code to read and trace through by hand.

• 'Only I': consistent with both findings above - the informal-technique claim is true and the pre-coding timing claim is false.

• 'Only II': fails, since a walkthrough needs the code to already exist - it cannot occur before coding.

• 'Both I and II': fails for the same timing reason.

• 'Neither I nor II': fails because it wrongly denies that a walkthrough is the informal (not formal) review technique.

So only the first statement is correct and the second is false - the answer is 'Only I'.