UiPath-AAAv1的中合格問題集 & UiPath-AAAv1試験It-Passports平時では、UiPath専門試験の審査に数か月から1年かかることもありますが、UiPath-AAAv1試験ガイドを使用すれば、試験の前に20〜30時間かけて復習し、UiPath-AAAv1学習教材を使用すれば、 UiPath-AAAv1学習資料にはすべての重要なテストポイントが既に含まれているため、他のレビュー資料は不要になります。 同時に、UiPath-AAAv1学習教材は、復習するためのまったく新しい学習方法を提供します-演習の過程で知識を習得しましょう。 UiPath Certified Professional Agentic Automation Associate (UiAAA)試験に簡単かつゆっくりと合格します。 UiPath Certified Professional Agentic Automation Associate (UiAAA) 認定 UiPath-AAAv1 試験問題 (Q44-Q49):質問 # 44
Four draft system prompts are shown for an invoice-approval agent. Based on UiPath guidance for context, instruments, and output format constraints, which draft is the most robust choice?
A. You are an invoice approver. After processing, output exactly the following JSON template:
{ "id": "ABC-123", "status": "approved", "amount": 9999.9 }
Extract the {{invoice_ID}} from the email text.
Use LookupInvoice to get the invoice amount and supplier name.
Escalate to Finance if amount # $10,000.
If amount > $10,000, approve the invoice.
Populate the fields above with real data.
B. You are an invoice-approval agent who deals only with supplier invoices and rejects any other request.
Extract {{invoice_ID}} from the email text.
When an {{invoice_ID}} is found, run the LookupInvoice tool to retrieve invoice amount and supplier name.
If the total # $10,000, escalate the case to Finance in Action Center, sending {{invoice_ID}}, amount, and supplier.
If the total > $10,000, approve the invoice.
Return a reply wrapped inside invoice_status: tags: use <approved> or <awaiting_review> as appropriate.
Follow a concise, professional tone and refuse tasks outside invoice approval.
C. You are an invoice-approval agent who deals only with supplier invoices and rejects any other request.
Extract invoice_ID from the email text.
When an invoice_ID is found, run the LookupInvoice tool to retrieve invoice amount and supplier name.
If the total # $10,000, escalate the case to Finance in Action Center, sending invoice_ID, amount, and supplier.
If the total > $10,000, approve the invoice.
Return a reply wrapped inside invoice_status: tags: use <approved> or <awaiting_review> as appropriate.
Follow a concise, professional tone and refuse tasks outside invoice approval.
D. You are an invoice approver. After processing, output exactly the following JSON template:
{ "id": "ABC-123", "status": "approved", "amount": 9999.9 }
Extract {{invoice_ID}} from the email text.
When an {{invoice_ID}} is found, run the LookupInvoice tool to retrieve invoice amount and supplier name.
If the total # $10,000, escalate the case to Finance in Action Center, sending {{invoice_ID}}, amount, and supplier.
If the total > $10,000, approve the invoice.
Populate the fields above with real data.
正解：B
解説：
The correct answer isB. This prompt follows UiPath'sbest practices for system promptsby clearly establishing agent identity, defining behavior logic, and including formatting constraints - all in a numbered, readable structure. The agent is given a clear role ("supplier invoices only"), boundary rules ("reject any other request"), and step-by-step instructions to follow. Numbered steps improve clarity and make parsing easier for LLMs.
The inclusion of tool usage (LookupInvoice) and conditional logic (# $10,000 vs > $10,000) mirrors UiPath's orchestration standards. Importantly, it also specifies how to format the output using <invoice_status> tags and instructs the agent to maintain a professional tone - critical elements in UiPath'sPrompt Engineering Framework.
Compared to options C and D, which introduce a rigid JSON format, Option B balancesstructure with flexibility. JSON-only prompts (like C) are good for strict APIs but lack the natural language behavior, tone control, and task-scoping essential in real-world agents. Option A is close but lacks step numbering, making it slightly less robust.
UiPath recommends system prompts include:
* Agent persona and role
* Tool instructions and decision rules
* Tone and refusal handling
* Clear, consistent output formatting
Option B satisfies all these criteria, making it the most robust, agent-ready system prompt.
質問 # 45
In which scenario is a deterministic evaluation more appropriate than a model-graded one?
A. When evaluating the tone and helpfulness of agent responses.
B. When open-ended reasoning needs to be scored.
C. When the correct output is known and fixed.
D. When the response quality depends on user satisfaction.
正解：C
解説：
Cis correct -deterministic evaluationsare best suited for cases where thecorrect output is known and fixed
, allowing for binary or rule-based validation.
Examples include:
* Exact matches (e.g., status: "Approved")
* Regex pattern checks
* Structured JSON outputs
* Correct field extraction (e.g., invoice number = INV-2023-0021)
UiPath supportsdeterministic evaluationusing logic like:
* "Output equals Expected"
* "Contains X and Y"
* "JSON schema is valid"
This is distinct frommodel-graded evaluations, which are used when outputs areopen-endedorqualitative(e.
g., summarization, sentiment, tone). These require LLM-based grading to assess whether the output is "good enough" even if it varies slightly.
Option A and B refer tosubjective assessmentsbetter suited formodel-graded scoring.
D implies feedback-driven quality, again requiringflexible interpretation, not deterministic checking.
Deterministic methods offerspeed, clarity, and automationin validation - ideal for tasks where there'sonly one right answer.
質問 # 46
You are part of a Procurement team that often struggles with manually reviewing and comparing quotations from different vendors. This process is time-consuming, prone to human errors, and lacks real-time price validation. Keeping up with internal rules and market standards makes things even more difficult. This can cause problems and cost overruns. How agents can help?
A. Agents rely on preloaded prices set by vendors and do not research market rates, verify compliance, or provide detailed validation, leading to potential errors and inefficiencies during quotation reviews.
B. Agents only store vendor quotations without cross-verifying prices, researching market trends, or checking compliance with policies, leaving procurement officers to manually manage the entire validation process.
C. Agents automate price validation by extracting item details from quotations, use tools to research market prices, checking policy compliance, and cross-verifying prices against benchmarks before sharing results with procurement officers for better decision-making.
D. Agents focus on sending reminders for deadlines but do not automate price analysis, extract item details, or validate compliance with internal rules, slowing down decision-making for procurement officers.
正解：C
解説：
Cis correct - agents in UiPath canintelligently automate complex procurement workflowsby combining tools likedocument extraction,web search for price benchmarks,policy validation, andLLM-based reasoning.
In this use case:
* The agent extractsstructured data(item, price, quantity) from multiple quotations
* Compares prices withexternal market sourcesusingWeb Searchor integrated APIs
* Appliescompany policies or thresholdsusing system prompts and guardrails
* Flags anomalies, escalates exceptions, or provides summarized comparisons This reduces:
* Manual effort
* Human error
* Turnaround time for approvals
And increases:
* Policy compliance
* Market alignment
* Decision speed for procurement officers
Options A, B, and D all fall short of UiPath agent capabilities. These responses describepassive or limited automations, whereas agents are built to operateproactively and contextually, especially in high-value business functions like procurement.
This example reflects theagentic automation blueprintat work - combining perception, decision, and action across multiple systems in real time.
質問 # 47
A developer is implementing a few-shot structured prompt for an email classification task. The prompt includes examples of email subjects labeled with their respective classifications, such as "Spam" or "Work." What is the most important aspect to consider when selecting examples for the prompt?
A. Always use more than 10 examples, regardless of task complexity.
B. Include examples with intentionally incorrect labels to improve training.
C. Use random and unrelated examples to test the prompt's robustness.
D. Choose examples that are diverse, relevant, and typical of the task's expected input.
正解：D
解説：
The correct answer isC- the most critical aspect of designing a few-shot prompt in UiPath'sLLM-driven agent frameworkis selecting examples that arediverse,representative, andrelevantto the actual data the agent will encounter in production.
In afew-shot structured prompt, examples are used to demonstrate a pattern the model should follow.
UiPath recommends:
* Usingrealistic examplesfrom actual user inputs or support tickets
* Coveringedge casesor variations in phrasing and tone
* Matching thedesired output structureexactly (e.g., Input: ..., Output: ...) These patterns help the LLMinfer the task correctlyandmaintain consistency, especially when processing unstructured inputs like email subjects.
Option A is incorrect - introducing incorrect labels degrades performance and adds confusion.
B is wrong - the number of examples depends on thetask complexity and token budget. Sometimes 3-5 is ideal.
D undermines task alignment - random examples reduce accuracy and coherence.
UiPath'sPrompt Engineering best practicesprioritizegrounded, contextually rich inputs, particularly when automating classification tasks like spam detection, triage, or intent recognition. High-quality, task-aligned examples lead tomore reliable, human-like agents.
質問 # 48
What are the characteristics of an agentic story within the 'Do later' quadrant in the impact and feasibility matrix?
A. Low feasibility and Low Impact
B. High feasibility and Low Impact
C. Low feasibility and High Impact
D. High feasibility and High Impact
正解：B
解説：
Cis correct - an agentic story that falls into the"Do Later"quadrant typically representshigh feasibility but low impact.
In UiPath'sImpact vs. Feasibility Matrix, used during theAgentic Discoveryphase, automation ideas are evaluated on:
* Feasibility(ease of implementation)
* Impact(business value, time saved, ROI)
Quadrants:
* Quick Wins: High impact, high feasibility
* Do Later: Low impact, high feasibility
* Strategic Bets: High impact, low feasibility
* Avoid/Backlog: Low on both
'Do Later' agentic stories are often simple to automate but don't deliver meaningful outcomes - e.g., automating low-volume tasks or internal reports with limited audience.
Focusing onimpactful use casesensures agent development time translates to real business value - one of the key lessons from UiPath's agentic blueprint methodology.