信頼的なAP-223キャリアパス & 合格スムーズAP-223試験内容 | ユニークなAP-223受験対策書最も短い時間で自分のIT技能を増強したいけれど、質の良い学習教材がないので悩んでいますか。ご心配なく、ShikenPASSのSalesforceのAP-223試験トレーニング資料を手に入れるなら、ITに関する認定試験はなんでも楽に合格できます。ShikenPASSの SalesforceのAP-223試験トレーニング資料は高度に認証されたIT領域の専門家の経験と創造を含めているものです。ShikenPASSは君にとって、ベストな選択だといっても良いです。 Salesforce CPQ and Billing Consultant Accredited Professional 認定 AP-223 試験問題 (Q14-Q19):質問 # 14
An escalation on a Revenue Cloud Project happens, which role is primarily responsible for project success?
A. Project Manager
B. Solution Architect
C. Developer
D. Technical Architect
E. Customer Success Manager
正解：A
解説：
When an escalation occurs on a Revenue Cloud implementation, the question is:
Who is ultimately responsible for the success of the project?
While many roles contribute, the Project Manager (PM) is the one accountable for:
Scope
Budget
Timeline
Risk & issue management
Cross-team coordination
Customer communication
Driving escalations and resolutions
Salesforce project methodology is clear:
The Project Manager owns overall project success.
Why the other roles are not the primary accountable party:Role
Why Not Responsible for Overall Success
Technical Architect
Owns technical integrity, not project success.
Solution Architect
Owns functional solution design, not delivery metrics.
Developer
Executes tasks, not responsible for project outcome.
Customer Success Manager
Supports customer relationship but not delivery execution.
Thus, the correct answer is:
✔ B - Project Manager
質問 # 15
You are implementing the Design Document for a large Enterprise Revenue Cloud project having multiple lookup price rules supporting a complex pricing requirement in the Build phase. During construction the customer discovers additional logic and external data stores that need to be incorporated in order to achieve the correct pricing in a particular set of use cases. You estimate the lookup price rules will need to be modified, additional rules will need to be created and API development will be needed. As an Implementation consultant what is the appropriate course of action that should take in this predicament?
A. Consult with the solution Architect first who will expedite the updates to the design documents, then implement the changes immediately.
B. Gather more details, if it requires a low level of effort then implement immediately before starting the next sprint. Otherwise Complete on the subsequent sprint.
C. Implement the lookup price rules immediately then review with the solution Architect.
D. Communication to the customer ongoing adjustment can be made as long as we're in the build phase.
E. Communicate these changes to the project manager who will evaluate the impact to scope, timeline and budget them determine the next course of action
正解：E
解説：
For a large Enterprise Revenue Cloud (Salesforce CPQ + Billing) implementation, the key themes in all Salesforce delivery guidance and project best practices are:
Governance and change control
Design-first, then build
Raising scope-impacting changes through the Project Manager
Architect accountability for solution integrity, PM accountability for scope/timeline/budget Let's walk through why C is correct and why the other options conflict with typical Salesforce CPQ/Billing implementation best practices.
1. Context of the ScenarioYou are in the Build phase and:
You already have a design with:
Multiple Lookup Price Rules implementing complex pricing.
New information emerges:
Additional pricing logic
External data stores that must be incorporated
Need to modify existing lookup rules
Need to create additional rules
Need API development (integration work)
This is not a cosmetic tweak; it is:
Scope-impacting (new integration/API work, new logic)
Design-impacting (pricing architecture changes)
Potentially timeline and budget impacting
Therefore, this triggers formal change control.
2. Why Option C is CorrectC. Communicate these changes to the project manager who will evaluate the impact to scope, timeline and budget then determine the next course of action This aligns with standard Salesforce implementation and project governance principles:
Any change that affects scope, complexity, or integration must be raised to the Project Manager (PM) Project Manager is responsible for:
Scope management
Timeline & milestones
Budget & resourcing
Managing change requests and stakeholder approvals
The PM will:
Evaluate impact with:
Solution Architect (for technical/design impact)
Tech leads / Dev leads (for effort estimation)
Decide:
Whether a Change Request (CR) is needed
How to re-prioritize sprints, adjust backlog
Whether additional budget / time is required
How to communicate to customer stakeholders
This preserves:
Design integrity (Architect still evaluated the solution)
Project discipline (PM governs scope/timeline/budget)
Traceability and documentation (updated design docs, backlog, CRs)
This is exactly how a large enterprise Revenue Cloud (CPQ + Billing) program is expected to run.
3. Why the Other Options Are Not AppropriateA. "Adjust as long as we're in build phase"A. Communication to the customer ongoing adjustment can be made as long as we're in the build phase.
Problems:
Implies uncontrolled scope creep:
"As long as we're in build, we can just keep adjusting."
No mention of:
Impact to scope, timeline, budget
Formal change control
Involvement of PM or Architect
In a complex CPQ/Billing implementation, this would:
Break governance
Risk missed deadlines and budget overruns
Create misaligned expectations with the customer
So A contradicts standard methodology and enterprise delivery practices.
B . "Implement then review with the Solution Architect"B. Implement the lookup price rules immediately then review with the solution Architect.
Problems:
Sequence is wrong:
You never build first and ask the Architect later on large-scale pricing and integration changes.
This can cause:
Misalignment with overall pricing architecture
Conflicts with other CPQ/Billing components (e.g., Amendments, Renewals, Billing logic) Rework if the Architect has a different approach Still no mention of PM or scope/timeline/budget impact.
This violates both design governance and project governance.
D . "Architect then immediate implementation (no PM)"D. Consult with the solution Architect first who will expedite the updates to the design documents, then implement the changes immediately.
This is closer, but still incomplete:
Good:
You involve the Solution Architect.
You talk about updating design documents.
But:
No involvement of the Project Manager.
No consideration of:
Impact to scope
Impact to timeline
Impact to budget
For "large Enterprise Revenue Cloud" projects, Architect ≠ PM:
Architect owns technical solution integrity
PM owns project plan, change control, stakeholder approvals
So D ignores formal change management which is critical at enterprise scale.
E . "If low effort, just do it; else next sprint"E. Gather more details, if it requires a low level of effort then implement immediately before starting the next sprint. Otherwise complete on the subsequent sprint.
Problems:
Consultant is unilaterally deciding based on "low effort":
No PM.
No formal scope/time/budget impact evaluation.
This might be okay for minor cosmetic or non-functional changes in a small project, but:
Here we have:
Complex pricing
Multiple lookup price rules
External data store integrations
API development
This is never "just low effort".
For a large enterprise Revenue Cloud implementation:
This bypasses governance, change control, and approvals.
So E promotes ad hoc scope changes, which is against standard practice.
4. How This Ties Back to Salesforce CPQ & Billing Best PracticesIn Salesforce CPQ and Billing implementations, especially when dealing with complex pricing logic and external integrations:
Complex Pricing (Lookup Price Rules):
Changes can affect:
Quote calculation performance
Sequential dependencies with Price Rules, Discount Schedules, QCP, Billing logic May cause downstream issues in:
Orders, Invoices, Revenue Schedules, Amendments, Renewals
External Data Stores & API Development:
Introduces:
New integration patterns
Error handling, retries, timeouts
Security and governance requirements
Impacts:
Technical design
Test strategy (SIT, UAT, performance testing)
Possibly non-functional requirements
Because of that, Salesforce project documentation and implementation guidance emphasize:
Raising such changes via Project Manager
Having the Solution Architect assess and update:
Solution design
Integration architecture
Managing it formally as a change request if it affects:
Scope
Timeline
Budget
This is exactly what Option C describes at the right level of responsibility.
質問 # 16
Universal containers recently migrated legacy contracts and subscriptions into salesforce in order to facilitate amendments and renewals in CPQ .however ,sales user sure getting the 'attempt to de-reference a null object' error when amending the legacy contract. what is the most likely cause for the error?
A. Required fields are missing or incorrectly populated on the legacy contract and subscription data
B. Migrated contracts and subscriptions cannot be amended using salesforce CPQ
C. Legacy subscription data are missing a lookup to a source quote line record
D. Amendment of legacy contract and subscription data requires asset-based renewal method
正解：A
解説：
Error:
"Attempt to de-reference a null object" while amending migrated contracts/subscriptions.
This is the classic CPQ issue when legacy contract/subscription data is missing required fields.
Subscription Start / End Dates
Quantity
Price fields
Billing Frequency
Term
Amendment-related fields (AmendmentStartDate, etc.)
Subscription Product
Related Order Product
Related Asset (if asset-based)
During amendment, CPQ expects:Missing or incorrectly populated fields cause CPQ code to attempt to reference null values → null pointer exception.
Thus:
✔ C. Required fields are missing or incorrectly populated
Why the other options are incorrect:Option
Why Incorrect
A . Migrated contracts cannot be amended
False. Salesforce explicitly supports amendments on migrated data if fields are populated correctly.
B . Asset-based renewal required
Not required-CPQ supports quote-based and asset-based renewal models.
D . Missing lookup to source Quote Line
Not required for legacy subscriptions; CPQ amendments work without source quote lines.
Thus C is the only valid root cause.
質問 # 17
What does the 'safe harbor' slide at the beginning of every salesforce presentation means?
A. anything presented from salesforce must be kept confidential
B. roadmap capability will be released exactly as they are demonstrated
C. new release capabilities will not have impact to existing implementations
D. mergers and acquisitions integrations are immediate
E. You and or your customer are making scoping, design, planning, purchasing making decisions based on current and available capabilities.
正解：E
解説：
The Salesforce Safe Harbor statement exists to remind customers:
They should only make scoping, planning, design, and purchasing decisions based on current, available functionality, not forward-looking statements or roadmap presentations.
Salesforce does not guarantee:
Release timing
Exact feature delivery
Backward compatibility
質問 # 18
What fields are required on the usage record to load and rate the usage?
A. Account, order product, usage summary start date time, end date time, quantity start date time, end date time, matching ID, matching Attribute,
B. lookup start date time, order product ID, unit of measure, quantity, usage summary lookup, account
C. Unit of measure, quantity
D. start date time, end date time, matching attribute, unit of measure, quantity, usage summary Cloud Certified Practice Tests
正解：B
解説：
To correctly load and rate Usage in Salesforce Billing, a Usage Record must contain the minimum required fields that allow the Billing Engine to:
Identify which subscription/order product the usage belongs to
Determine the billing period
Retrieve the correct rating method (per unit, tiered, etc.)
Apply account-level and billing-level context
Roll up usage into a Usage Summary for invoicing
Salesforce Billing documentation specifies that the following fields are required for rating:
Required Fields for Usage RatingField
Why it is required
Order Product (SBQQB__OrderProduct__c)
Links usage to the billable product and its pricing model
Start Date/Time
Used to determine billing period & usage summary matching
(End Date/Time)
Optional, depending on rating model
Quantity
Required for rating calculation
Unit of Measure
Required to match usage with the product's usage rate
Usage Summary Lookup (optional but required for import batching)
Groups usage records for processing
Account
Required for Billing Context
Option B is the only choice that correctly includes:
Order Product (mandatory for rating)
Start Date/Time
Quantity
Unit of Measure
Usage Summary Lookup
Account
This matches Salesforce Billing's usage rating prerequisites.
✔ Why other options are incorrect:A - Missing Order Product IDUsage cannot be rated without knowing which subscription/order product it belongs to.
So A is invalid.
"Matching ID" and "Matching Attribute" are not standard required fields for usage rating.
Overly broad and mixes irrelevant fields.
C - Includes fields that Salesforce does not require
D - Only includes UOM + QuantityInsufficient. Missing the essential contextual fields (Order Product, Date/Time, Account).
✔ Final Confirmed AnswerB. lookup start date time, order product ID, unit of measure, quantity, usage summary lookup, account