Free and Premium Salesforce AP-223 Dumps Questions Answers

The requirement:

"Bulk discounts include previously purchased quantities for pricing calculations."

This refers to cross-order discounting, where historical quantities affect pricing on the new quote.

To support this:

✔ B – Contracts, Subscriptions and Assets should be populated with historical dataCPQ reads existing Subscriptions/Assets to determine previously purchased quantities.

Historical install base must be migrated for correct discounting.

✔ E – Discount schedules with Cross Orders checkedSalesforce CPQ includes an OOTB feature:

Discount Schedule → Cross Orders = TRUEThis allows the quantity tiers to consider historical purchases.

Incorrect options:

A Custom Action unnecessary unless data is external (not indicated here).

C Summary variables cannot aggregate off-contract historical quantities.

D Migrating invoices is not required for quantity-based pricing.

Thus, the validated answers are B and E.

When Price Rules are insufficient for complex pricing logic, Salesforce CPQ documentation directs consultants to the Quote Calculator Plugin (QCP) as the next escalation point.

QCP enables custom JavaScript logic executed inside the CPQ Quote Calculator, allowing manipulation of:

List price

Net price

Quantity

Custom logic loops

Conditional calculations beyond standard rule capabilities

Flows or Apex should not manipulate pricing during calculation because they run outside the CPQ calculator, causing inconsistent pricing results.

Hence the correct next step is QCP.

Invoice Scheduler Settings:

Target Date = Jan 15

Bill Usage Charges = FALSE

This means:

The scheduler will generate invoice lines for Order Products only, not usage summaries.Thus the correct rule is:

✔ A — Order Products with Next Billing Date equal to or earlier than January 15

Why the other options are wrong:Option

Why Incorrect

B — Usage Summaries

Ignored because Bill Usage Charges = False.

C — Next Billing Date equal to or after

Billing only generates lines for dates <= Target Date.

D — Next Charge Date

Not used by Invoice Scheduler.

Thus A is correct.

Salesforce seasonal releases upgrade all Preview sandboxes before production.

To ensure testing against the upcoming release, a consultant must do the following:

✔ A. Review status.salesforce.com for sandbox preview scheduleSalesforce publishes sandbox preview instructions, refresh cutoffs, and upgrade dates. Essential for planning regression testing.

✔ C. Determine whether the sandbox is on a preview or non-preview instanceCritical because:

Preview sandbox = upgraded BEFORE production

Non-preview sandbox = upgraded AFTER productionTo test early, the org must stay on preview.

Why D is NOT correct (even though your key said A, C, D)Salesforce does NOT allow you to "submit a ticket" to request sandbox upgrades.

Sandbox preview status is controlled solely by whether the sandbox is refreshed before or after the preview cutoff date.

This is explicitly stated:

“Support cannot move a sandbox to a different release level.”

— Salesforce Release Management Documentation

Therefore, A and C are correct, not D.

Why B is incorrectSalesforce does NOT upgrade all sandboxes at the same time.

Preview vs Non-preview determines upgrade timing.

For multi-level discount approvals in CPQ:

A – Identify backup approvers: Required because Salesforce Approval Processes must account for out-of-office or unavailable approvers.

D – Define discount thresholds for sales reps: Mandatory so the system knows when to trigger approvals.

E – Document approval levels: Ensures clear governance and reduces ambiguity.

Incorrect options:

B printing approval matrices is not a Salesforce implementation requirement.

C contradicts the purpose of approval controls.

Thus the correct answers are A, D, E.

During UAT, any incident related to invoice totals must include information that allows the consultant or tester to reproduce and diagnose the issue quickly.

✔ B — Quote number, Order number, or Invoice numberThese IDs allow the consultant to immediately:

Locate the exact transaction

Review invoice lines, tax, proration, billing rules

Check data mapping and calculation sequence

This is essential for any Revenue Cloud troubleshooting scenario.

✔ D — Steps to replicate the issueWithout reproducible steps, diagnosis is almost impossible.

UAT defect triage requires:

Exact user actions

Fields populated

Sequence of operations (e.g., "Bill Now", "Invoice Run", etc.)

This is a Salesforce UAT best practice.

✔ E — Expected resultsCrucial for determining:

Whether the system is incorrect

Whether requirements were misunderstood

Whether recalculation logic (tax, proration, discounts) was expected to behave differently

Why Other Options Are IncorrectOption

Why Wrong

A — Description of new requirements

UAT incidents are not for new requirements; they are for defects.

C — Expected resolution date

Not part of incident description; it's part of project management, not defect logging.

Final Answer: B, D, E

This use case describes a three-dimensional pricing model where the price of a product is determined by length × width × height. These values are user selections (likely stored on Quote Line fields), and CPQ must determine the correct price based on a matrix of dimensions.

Salesforce CPQ documentation identifies Lookup Tables used with Price Rules as the standard method for implementing matrix or multi-attribute pricing.

✔ Why Price Rule with Lookup Table is the correct answerSalesforce CPQ Lookup Tables allow you to store pricing data externally from the product record and return the correct price based on multiple inputs.

Lookup tables can key off of multiple dimensions, e.g.:

Length

Width

Height

A price rule performs the lookup at calculation time and sets:

List Price, or

Custom price field

Create custom fields on Quote Line:

Length__c

Width__c

Height__c

Build a Lookup Table with key columns:

Length range

Width range

Height range

Resulting price

Build a Price Rule that uses:

Price Conditions → to map entered dimensions

Lookup Query → to fetch matching price

Price Action → to set the Quote Line's Unit Price

Relevant capabilities:Typical CPQ design for dimensional pricing:This is exactly the pattern Salesforce recommends for multi-attribute pricing.

❌ Why the other options are incorrectA. Percent of TotalUsed for:

Support fees

Add-on fees based on parent productsNot for dimensional pricing.

B. Multi-Dimensional Quoting (MDQ)Used for:

Term-based pricing (Year 1, Year 2, Year 3)

Usage tiers over time

MDQ does not support 3-dimensional physical attributes.

C. Discount ScheduleSupports:

Volume tiering

Quantity-based pricing

Does not support multi-attribute dimensional pricing.

The consultant discovers:

Multiple triggers

Workflows

Flows

Possibly recursion or conflicting automations… on the Opportunity, which is foundational for CPQ.

Salesforce Revenue Cloud Best Practice:Use one automation type (preferably Flow) to avoid conflicts, recursion, performance issues, and unpredictable ordering.

Too many automation types cause issues with:

CPQ Quote Sync

Opportunity → Quote event handling

Performance and CPU limits

Unpredictable execution order

Therefore:

✔ A — Recommend using a single automation type for best performanceThis aligns with:

Salesforce Well-Architected Framework

Salesforce CPQ implementation guidelines

General platform automation best practices

Why other options are incorrect:Option

Why Not Correct

B

Large Quote Threshold affects calculator performance, not Opportunity automation.

C

Multiple automation types is the problem, not the solution.

D

Accepting the current messy automation is not recommended before CPQ implementation.

Thus A is correct.

These are the three factors that increase scope during legacy data migration for Revenue Cloud:

✔ A — Extracting from multiple sources takes more time and resourcesIf legacy data is spread across multiple CRMs, ERPs, billing engines, or flat files, this increases:

Extraction complexity

Mapping effort

Data cleansing time

This always expands project scope.

✔ B — Fragmented or incomplete information must be aggregated and validatedIf legacy data is dirty or inconsistent:

Amendments fail

Renewals break

CPQ calculations are wrong

Billing proration becomes inaccurate

Data validation + cleanup = additional scope.

✔ D — Large data volumes take longer to loadFull loads of:

Order Products

Subscriptions

Assets

Contracts

…can take hours to days, requiring:

Batch loading

Testing

Restart planning

Performance tuning

This clearly expands scope.

Why C and E are not correct:Option

Reason

C — External objects eliminate migration

Completely false. CPQ/Billing cannot use external objects for core processes such as pricing, contracting, amendments, renewals, invoicing.

E — Amendments/Renewals require customizations

Not a migration consideration; it is a design topic, not a factor that expands migration scope.

Setting Legal Entity on:

Order Product

Order Product Consumption Schedule

Must be scalable, bulk-safe, and future-proof.

The most performant and Salesforce-recommended approach is:

No additional DML required

Runs before insert and update

Bulk-safe

Better performance than Workflow or Process Builder

No need to use QCP, which only affects Quotes—not Orders or Schedules

✔ Before-Save Flow (Record-Triggered Flow)Thus D is correct.

The three customer teams that must be involved in Revenue Cloud scoping are:

✔ A — Information (Product / Pricing owners)They define product catalog rules, pricing models, and offerings.

✔ B — Technology (IT/Architecture)Ensures integration, data migration, security, and platform alignment.

✔ C — Sales OperationsOwns quoting flows, approvals, discounting, sales motions, and user experience.

These teams define core CPQ processes.

Why others aren't required at scoping:Team

Why Not Required

D — Accounting/Finance

Essential for Billing scoping, but not required for CPQ-only scoping unless Billing is in scope.

E — Customer Service

Usually relevant for Service Cloud and CALM, not initial CPQ scoping.

F — Human Resources

Irrelevant to CPQ and Billing.

Thus A, B, C is correct.

When users log in to Salesforce CPQ for the first time, the Post-Install Script must run.

This script:

Initializes CPQ user settings

Creates required calculation metadata

Ensures Quote + Quote Line permissions and defaults work

Enables Primary Quote logic

If an automation tries to set a new Quote as Primary, but the user has not run the CPQ post-install script, CPQ raises errors because internal references and fields are not yet initialized for that user.

This is a documented CPQ requirement.

Thus, A is correct, and all other options point to permission issues that do NOT cause this specific failure pattern.

Document generation performance in CPQ depends heavily on template content size, not price rules or QLE performance.

✔ C — Use compressed image formatsLarge JPG/PNG images dramatically slow down:

Template rendering

PDF generation

Email attachment creation

Compressing images is a documented best practice.

✔ E — Reduce the number of line columns in the quote documentEach additional column:

Adds more data retrieval

Increases merge time

Slows PDF rendering

This is one of the primary causes of slow Quote Document generation in CPQ.

Why the other answers are incorrectOption

Why Wrong

A & B — Product rules / constraints

They affect quote calculation, not document generation.

D — Fields in QLE

QLE configuration does not affect document generation speed.

Thus C and E are correct.

The user story states that sales users should inherit previously negotiated pricing when quoting for existing customers.

In Salesforce CPQ, the object that stores account-specific negotiated prices is:

Contracted Pricing (SBQQ__ContractedPrice__c)

This object overrides standard list prices during quoting based on:

Account

Product

Pricebook

Contract linkage

Therefore, in addition to migrating Accounts, Contracts, and Quotes, the missing legacy pricing data must be loaded into Contracted Pricing.

The three core principles of scoping a Revenue Cloud (CPQ + Billing) project are:

✔ A — Alignment with customer on CPQ & Billing terminologyCPQ/Billing have specific terms (bundles, subscriptions, MRR, usage, amendments).

Shared vocabulary is essential for project success.

✔ C — Lead with business requirements and processSalesforce methodology stresses understanding:

Selling motions

Billing processes

Amendment/renewal lifecycle… before discussing configuration or technology.

✔ D — Think transformation before customizationRevenue Cloud succeeds when customers improve processes rather than recreating legacy systems.

Why the incorrect options fail:Option

Why Incorrect

B. Add new technology to existing process

Bad practice. Revenue Cloud encourages redesigning outdated processes, not replicating them.

E. Interview customer first before knowledge sharing

Opposite of best practice. Discovery is collaborative; knowledge sharing happens early.

Requirement:

Set Legal Entity on Order Product and OP Consumption Schedule in a scalable way.

Runs before insert, so no second update transaction is needed.

Scalable (bulk-safe, low CPU, no recursion).

Modern Salesforce best practice for field population.

Works consistently across:

Order Products

Usage/Consumption Schedules

Why D. Before-Save Flow is correctWhy not the others?Option

Why Incorrect

A. Workflow Rule

Deprecated, not scalable, cannot run before-save.

B. Custom Setting

Storage mechanism, not automation logic.

C. QCP

Only affects Quote stage, not Order Products or Consumption Schedules AFTER order creation.

Thus **D is the correct, scalable, and recommended pattern.

Scenario:

A customer has:

A posted invoice

A new order for the same account

Wants to add items without using invoice batches

The correct approach:

✔ D — Use Bill Now on the new order and consolidate invoicesSteps:

Run Bill Now on the new order → generates a new invoice immediately.

Enable Invoice Consolidation (Billing settings / Account level).

Combine invoice lines from the new invoice into the already posted invoice.

Salesforce Billing supports invoice consolidation even after one invoice is posted.

Why the other options are wrongOption

Why Incorrect

A — Credit then Bill

Unnecessary; original invoice is correct and should remain posted.

B — Bill Now + reparent invoice lines

Reparenting posted invoice lines is NOT supported.

C — Cancel and Rebill

Only used to correct errors, not to add new order items.

Thus D is the correct solution.

In Salesforce CPQ + Billing (Revenue Cloud), heavy use of cross-object formula fields can create serious performance, calculation, and reliability issues. Salesforce product documentation and CPQ study guides highlight several risks related to:

Quote calculation engine performance

SOQL query depth

Runtime evaluation limits

Data availability timing during synchronous calculations

Below is the breakdown of the options:

✅ A. Formula field data is not always available during CPQ quote calculationCorrect.

Salesforce CPQ reads values at calculation time, but cross-object formula fields may:

Not resolve in time if they depend on parent records updated within the same transaction

Return stale values because formula evaluation is not recalculated in real time mid-calculation

Fail during QCP or price rule evaluation due to record access/state issues

This is a known risk documented in CPQ technical architecture guidance.

❌ B. Formula fields have unlimited access to object many relationships away which makes it vulnerable to data changes.Incorrect.

Formula fields do NOT have unlimited access. They are limited to 10 relationship levels.

While data changes on parent objects can affect formula results, this is not a primary risk emphasized in Revenue Cloud implementation guidance.

Therefore, not one of the three correct risks.

✅ C. They are computationally expensive.Correct.

Formula fields—especially cross-object ones—are recalculated at runtime every time:

The referenced record is queried

CPQ calculator reads them during price rule evaluation

Billing processes (Invoice Run, Usage Rating, etc.) reference them

This can significantly slow down:

Quote calculations

Order/Invoice generation

Any multi-object SOQL-heavy logic

This is a well-known performance risk.

✅ D. They can easily exceed limits if not carefully designed and testedCorrect.

Cross-object formulas contribute to:

SOQL query depth limits

CPU time limits

Formula size complexity

Relationship depth limits

In CPQ/Billing, where Quote and Quote Line processing already push platform limits, too many formula fields can cause:

Calculation failures

Invoice/Order creation errors

Apex limit exceptions

Salesforce documentation warns against heavy formula usage for precisely these scalability concerns.

❌ E. Formula fields are editable, after calculation a user/process can overwrite the valueIncorrect.

Formula fields are never editable by users or automation.

Their values are dynamically calculated from their formula expressions.

Therefore, this option is not a valid risk.

When a Revenue Cloud project is escalated, the Project Manager is the role accountable for:

Overall project success

Scope, timeline, budget

Risk management

Issue resolution

Stakeholder coordination

Salesforce implementation methodology is clear:

The Project Manager owns project outcomes.

Thus D is correct.