The correct selection is A, D. A move to multi-org can be justified when a new line of business has genuinely independent processes that make the shared org excessively complex, or when an acquired company has its own org, different business model, and separate regulatory obligations. Collaboration and standardized processes generally strengthen the case for consolidation rather than fragmentation. From a system-design perspective, the decision should minimize unnecessary coupling while preserving clear ownership, scalability, governance, and extensibility. Salesforce architecture is strongest when boundaries reflect real business and technical responsibilities instead of using organizational convenience as the primary design driver. The other options introduce tighter coupling, duplicate governance, or solve a different architectural concern and therefore do not satisfy the stated boundary and ownership requirements. For this scenario, the decisive point is therefore the platform behavior represented by the selected options (A. UC is launching a new line of business with independent processes and adding any new feature to it is too complex.; D. Acquired company that has its own Salesforce org and operates in a different business with its own set of regulatory requirements.). Applying that rule consistently keeps the implementation aligned with Salesforce-supported lifecycle practices and makes the resulting change easier to review, validate, and operate across environments.

Study Guide reference: System Design --- org strategy; modular architecture; integration topology; data ownership; enterprise governance; scalability.