Sharing-and-Visibility-Architect Salesforce Certified Platform Sharing and Visibility Architect (Plat-Arch-205) Free Practice Exam Questions (2025 Updated)

Testing Apex Managed Sharing:

Properly testing Apex managed sharing involves using the runAs() method to simulate different user contexts and validate access and sharing behavior.

Why Option B is Correct:

The runAs() method allows testing of record-level access by running code in the context of specific users, ensuring that Apex sharing logic behaves as intended.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

Option A: The isShareable keyword does not exist in Apex.

Option C: isAccessible is used to check field-level security, not record visibility.

For more information, refer to Salesforce Testing Best Practices: https://help.salesforce.com/

When Apex-managed sharing is used to grant access to records, changes to the record owner do not affect the existing shared records if a custom Apex Sharing Reason is created. The sharing reason allows the sharing record to remain independent of the ownership changes, ensuring persistent access for users who were granted visibility through Apex.

Option A: The "With Sharing" keyword only enforces the sharing rules when executing the Apex code but does not ensure persistence of shared access.

Option B: Creating a new manual sharing record directly is not recommended because manual sharing is automatically deleted when ownership changes.

Option C (Correct): A custom Apex Sharing Reason allows the architect to maintain explicit sharing logic, avoiding access loss during ownership changes.

Field-level security (FLS) defines which fields a user can view or edit. If a user can see some fields (like Name, Created Date, etc.) but not others, the issue is likely related to FLS settings on the user's profile.

Option A: Role-based sharing rules control record access, not field access.

Option B (Correct): The Sales User profile likely lacks FLS access for the fields in question. Adjusting the profile or permission sets to grant visibility to these fields will resolve the issue.

Option C: Page layouts define which fields are displayed but cannot override field-level security. If the profile lacks FLS access, the fields won’t appear regardless of the layout.

When performing large-scale changes, such as reorganizing roles or reassigning ownership, recalculating sharing rules can be resource-intensive and may affect performance. Deferred Sharing Recalculation allows Salesforce admins to temporarily pause sharing rule calculations during bulk operations. This ensures that the reorganization completes efficiently, and the sharing recalculations are processed after the changes are made.

Option A: Partitioning data using Divisions helps segment data logically but does not address the specific need to optimize sharing recalculations.

Option B: Skinny tables improve query performance for specific data structures but do not mitigate recalculation delays.

Option C (Correct): Deferred Sharing Recalculation ensures minimal performance impact during bulk ownership changes or Role Hierarchy updates.

Master-Detail Relationship Behavior:

In a master-detail relationship, access to child records (Invoice) is determined by access to the parent record (Account).

Since the AR team does not have access to accounts, they cannot see invoices related to those accounts.

Why Option B is Correct:

To resolve this issue, a sharing rule must be created to share accounts with the AR team. This will cascade access to the related Invoice records due to the master-detail relationship.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

Option A: The AR team has object-level access to Invoice but still cannot see the records due to account-level sharing restrictions.

Option C: Sharing rules for invoices are not applicable because access to invoices is governed by account-level access in a master-detail relationship.

For detailed information, refer to Salesforce Sharing and Object Relationships documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/

Default Account Teams allow users to predefine a set of supporting internal users (e.g., legal, engineering, finance) who need access to customer records. The team members are automatically granted the specified access whenever an Account is created or updated, reducing the manual effort required by sales reps.

Option A: A criteria-based sharing rule might grant access to a larger group but does not provide the flexibility and precision of Account Teams.

Option C: Assigning View All Data via a permission set gives overly broad access and violates the principle of least privilege.

To restrict access to only Person Accounts for the retail sales team while maintaining a private OWD:

Option A (Correct): Create criteria-based sharing rules. These rules can be defined to share accounts of type PersonAccount with users in the Retail Sales role. This ensures they can only access retail customers (Person Accounts) and not Business Accounts.

Option B: Sharing on AccountContactRelation does not provide direct access to accounts and is irrelevant to this requirement.

Option C: Updating the profile to grant access to the Person Account record type does not align with the private OWD and does not manage access to records individually.

Role Hierarchy in Partner Communities:

Salesforce enforces a three-level limit for partner user roles in Partner Communities: Partner Executive → Partner Manager → Partner User. This limitation can restrict the implementation of deeper role hierarchies.

Why Option B is Correct:

The restructuring of the affiliate's internal sales team exceeds the three-level role hierarchy limitation in Partner Communities. This is the main problem that must be addressed.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

Option A: The Channel Manager role is not relevant to the structural limitation of roles in Partner Communities.

Option C: Partner Communities do support role hierarchies, but they are limited to three levels.

For further details, refer to the Salesforce Partner Community Role Hierarchy documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/

Managing List Views:

Sharing list views with Public Groups allows administrators to control visibility efficiently while avoiding clutter for irrelevant users.

Why Option C is Correct:

Public Groups are the most scalable way to manage access to list views for users in specific geographies.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

Option A: Sharing with individual users is not scalable for managing access to 50+ list views.

Option B: Sharing with a queue is not applicable as queues are used for record assignment, not list view sharing.

For detailed guidance, refer to Salesforce List View Sharing documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/

Granular Locking:

This feature minimizes record-locking issues by enabling fine-grained locking mechanisms during large-scale operations, such as Role Hierarchy realignments.

It reduces contention by locking only relevant portions of the hierarchy instead of the entire hierarchy.

Why Option A is Correct:

Granular Locking is explicitly designed to handle large-scale operations, such as role realignments, without performance degradation.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

Option B: Skinny Table Indexing improves query performance but is unrelated to Role Hierarchy changes.

Option C: Divisions partition data for performance but do not directly affect Role Hierarchy realignments.

For details, see Salesforce Granular Locking documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/

To enable community users to collaborate on Opportunities, they must have access to the Opportunity object, which is included in the Partner Community license. This license type is specifically designed for partners and provides access to features like Opportunities, Campaigns, Leads, and other standard objects required for collaborative sales processes.

Option A: Customer Community Plus licenses do not grant access to Opportunities, as they are primarily focused on external customer engagement without sales collaboration.

Option B: Customer Community licenses are limited to basic interactions like viewing and updating cases or accessing content, and they exclude access to Opportunities.

Option C (Correct): Partner Community licenses include access to Opportunities, making them the appropriate choice for this use case.

The Opportunity Team feature is the most effective way to collaborate on an opportunity in a private sharing model. By adding the product specialist and solution engineer to the Opportunity Team, the junior account manager can share specific permissions for the opportunity without altering ownership. Additionally, Opportunity Team settings remain intact even if the account ownership changes to a senior manager.

Option A: Manual sharing is less flexible and requires re-sharing if the account is reassigned.

Option B: Sharing the account doesn’t ensure access to opportunities since sharing is record-specific in a private model.

Option C (Correct): Opportunity Teams allow role-based collaboration and persistent sharing, ensuring access is unaffected by ownership changes.

In Salesforce, the Role Hierarchy grants record access to users higher in the hierarchy. If the operations users are below the operations manager in the Role Hierarchy and the object’s organization-wide default (OWD) is not "Private," the manager will inherit access to records owned by their subordinates. This approach is automatic and does not require additional sharing rules or groups.

Option A: Ownership-based sharing rules are unnecessary if the Role Hierarchy provides the required access.

Option C: Using a Public Group is an unnecessary workaround for this scenario when Role Hierarchy fulfills the requirement.

For custom objects, Salesforce allows disabling the Access Using Hierarchies option. By setting the Organization-Wide Default (OWD) to Private and unchecking Access Using Hierarchies, you ensure that records are only accessible to the owner and explicitly granted users. This prevents the owner’s manager or anyone higher in the role hierarchy from automatically gaining access.

Option A: Removing CRUD permissions from profiles would block all access to the object for managers, which may not align with business requirements.

Option B: Apex sharing is unnecessary when the problem can be solved declaratively by adjusting the OWD and hierarchy settings.

Option C (Correct): Setting OWD to Private and disabling Access Using Hierarchies is the most straightforward solution for restricting access to managers.

The Opportunity Team feature allows collaboration by granting specific permissions (Read, Read/Write, or access defined by roles) to users added to an opportunity. In this scenario, the sales rep has Read/Write permissions, which means they can:

View and update the opportunity, including editing fields like the opportunity stage.

They cannot perform administrative tasks like transferring ownership or managing the opportunity team unless explicitly granted "Full Access" or assigned additional roles that permit these actions.

Option A (Correct): Updating the opportunity stage is allowed as part of Read/Write access.

Option B: Replacing the opportunity owner requires administrative privileges, which are not included in standard Read/Write permissions.

Option C: Adding or removing members in the opportunity team requires "Full Access," which exceeds Read/Write permissions.

With a private organization-wide default (OWD) model for the Account object, users do not have automatic access to related records they do not own. However, Salesforce provides implicit sharing, which ensures that the owner of a child record, such as an Opportunity, is granted Read access to the related parent Account. This implicit sharing does not extend to Edit or Create permissions unless additional sharing rules, roles, or explicit access mechanisms are configured. Therefore, the sales rep will have Read access to the Account associated with their owned Opportunities. (developer.salesforce.com)

Field-Level Security (FLS) is the most secure and efficient method to restrict visibility of sensitive fields like the VIP Flag to specific user groups or profiles. FLS is applied at the field level, ensuring that users who lack permission cannot view, edit, or access the field, regardless of the sharing or page layout configurations.

Option A: Changing the field type to a picklist and using record types unnecessarily complicates the solution. Record types are typically used for different business processes, not for field-level security.

Option B: Using page layouts restricts visibility on the UI but doesn’t secure the field from API or report-level access. Users with access to the object could still retrieve the field's data.

Option C: Setting FLS ensures that the field is hidden everywhere it appears (e.g., UI, reports, APIs) for all profiles except the Private Banking Rep Profile. This is the most effective and Salesforce-recommended method for sensitive data control.

Field Level Security (FLS):

FLS controls whether a field is visible or editable for a specific profile.

Search layouts define which fields are searchable, independent of edit permissions.

Why Option B is Correct:

Setting FLS for the Banking Rep profile ensures the field is visible but read-only, while granting edit access to the Customer Support Rep profile aligns with the requirement.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

Option A: Validation rules are not a scalable solution for controlling field access.

Option C: Search layout settings do not control field-level visibility or edit permissions.

For details, refer to Salesforce FLS documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/

Implicit Sharing:

Salesforce provides implicit sharing for parent-child relationships. For example, access to an Opportunity record implicitly grants access to its parent Account record.

Why Option A is Correct:

Since the finance analyst has access to an Opportunity, she also gains implicit access to the related Account record because of the parent-child relationship.

Why Others Are Incorrect:

Option B: Role Hierarchy does not directly affect this situation unless explicitly configured.

Option C: Contact records are not directly accessible via implicit sharing from Opportunity but can be accessed through their relationship to the Account.

For detailed information, refer to Salesforce Implicit Sharing documentation: https://help.salesforce.com/