Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

Salesforce Certified Platform Sharing and Visibility Architect (Plat-Arch-205) Exam - Topic 5 Question 26 Discussion

An architect has a requirement to create a criteria-based sharing rule based on the customer Social Security Number. However, when setting up the rule in Contact Sharing, the field is not shown on the list of available fields.What is causing this issue?
A) The field has been configured for encryption.
B) The architect's profile docs not have Field Level Security for this field.
C) The architect does not have permission to Compliance fields.

Salesforce Certified Platform Sharing and Visibility Architect (Plat-Arch-205) Exam - Topic 5 Question 26 Discussion

Actual exam question for Salesforce's Salesforce Certified Platform Sharing and Visibility Architect (Plat-Arch-205) exam
Question #: 26
Topic #: 5
[All Salesforce Certified Platform Sharing and Visibility Architect (Plat-Arch-205) Questions]

An architect has a requirement to create a criteria-based sharing rule based on the customer Social Security Number. However, when setting up the rule in Contact Sharing, the field is not shown on the list of available fields.

What is causing this issue?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

by Joesph at Nov 24, 2023, 07:47 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium Salesforce Certified Platform Sharing and Visibility Architect (Plat-Arch-205) Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Jodi
8 months ago
I disagree, it’s not just about permissions, it’s also about encryption!
upvoted 0 times
...
Alica
8 months ago
Definitely C, Compliance fields are usually restricted.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sylvia
8 months ago
Wait, can you even use SSNs for sharing rules? Seems risky!
upvoted 0 times
...
Omer
9 months ago
I think it's B, Field Level Security could be the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amber
9 months ago
Pretty sure it's A, encrypted fields can't be shared.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lelia
9 months ago
This question feels similar to one we practiced, but I can't recall the exact details about permissions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Franchesca
9 months ago
Compliance fields might be restricted too, but I'm not entirely sure how that impacts sharing rules.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cristy
9 months ago
I think it could also be related to Field Level Security. I need to double-check the architect's profile settings.
upvoted 0 times
...
Torie
9 months ago
I remember something about encryption affecting visibility, so maybe it's option A?
upvoted 0 times
...
Barbra
9 months ago
This seems straightforward to me. The field is encrypted, so it won't show up in the list. That's got to be the answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Zona
10 months ago
Ah, I think I know what's going on. The architect probably doesn't have access to the Compliance fields. That's my bet.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nenita
10 months ago
I'm a bit confused on this one. Is it possible the architect's profile doesn't have the right permissions to access that field?
upvoted 0 times
...
Justine
10 months ago
Okay, let's see... I'm pretty sure the field is encrypted, so that's my best guess for the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kanisha
10 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'll need to think carefully about the different possibilities here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Shad
10 months ago
I've got this! Strategic benchmarking is all about comparing our high-level, big-picture performance to the industry leaders. % market share and % return on assets are textbook examples of the right kind of metrics for this.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kara
10 months ago
Hmm, I'm not entirely sure about this one. I'll have to think it through carefully before selecting an answer.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cory
10 months ago
I feel pretty confident about this one. The Trusted Subsystem pattern seems like the best approach to meet the security requirements, especially around filtering responses and logging access to the legacy system. I'll focus on implementing that pattern effectively.
upvoted 0 times
...
Novella
10 months ago
I'd first check if the question is talking about special conditions for gratuity in tragic circumstances.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorrine
1 year ago
I'm feeling option C. The architect must be running around the office, begging for permission to the Compliance fields. 'Please, sir, may I have some access?'
upvoted 0 times
Bulah
1 year ago
C) The architect does not have permission to Compliance fields.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hoa
1 year ago
B) The architect's profile does not have Field Level Security for this field.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mauricio
1 year ago
A) The field has been configured for encryption.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Reiko
1 year ago
Aha, I reckon it's option B. The architect needs to get their profile updated with the right Field Level Security. Welcome to the world of Salesforce administration!
upvoted 0 times
Brendan
1 year ago
The architect should definitely look into updating their profile for that field.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kerry
1 year ago
Yeah, the Field Level Security might be the issue here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elza
1 year ago
Definitely. The architect needs to make sure they have the right permissions for that field.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mi
1 year ago
Yeah, the Field Level Security might be the issue here. They should update it.
upvoted 0 times
...
Carri
1 year ago
I think it's option B too. The architect should check their profile settings.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lakeesha
1 year ago
I think it's option B too. The architect should check their profile settings.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Kenneth
1 year ago
Haha, I'm going with option C. The architect probably doesn't have permission to access the compliance fields. Classic case of 'it's not you, it's the permissions'.
upvoted 0 times
Martina
1 year ago
User 4: Yeah, I agree. It's likely a permissions issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ceola
1 year ago
User 3: I'm with Ceola on this one. The architect probably doesn't have permission to Compliance fields.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hortencia
1 year ago
User 2: Hortencia, I disagree. I believe the architect's profile does not have Field Level Security for this field.
upvoted 0 times
...
Roxanne
1 year ago
User 1: I think it's because the field has been configured for encryption.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Barney
1 year ago
I'm betting on option A. If the field is encrypted, that would explain why it's not showing up in the list. Gotta love those security features, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Ammie
1 year ago
Hmm, I think it's option B. The architect's profile must not have the necessary permissions to access this field. Access control strikes again!
upvoted 0 times
Terrilyn
1 year ago
Maybe the field is encrypted, that could be causing the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dana
1 year ago
I agree, it's probably option B. The architect needs to check their profile permissions.
upvoted 0 times
...
Abel
1 year ago
Maybe the field is encrypted, that could be causing the issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amos
1 year ago
I agree, it's probably option B. The architect needs to check their profile permissions.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jacqueline
1 year ago
But could it also be that the architect does not have permission to Compliance fields?
upvoted 0 times
...
Leota
1 year ago
I agree with Fernanda, it makes sense that encryption would hide the field.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fernanda
1 year ago
I think the issue is that the field has been configured for encryption.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel