Valid Sharing-and-Visibility-Architect Dumps shared by ExamDiscuss.com for Helping Passing Sharing-and-Visibility-Architect Exam! ExamDiscuss.com now offer the newest Sharing-and-Visibility-Architect exam dumps, the ExamDiscuss.com Sharing-and-Visibility-Architect exam questions have been updated and answers have been corrected get the newest ExamDiscuss.com Sharing-and-Visibility-Architect dumps with Test Engine here:
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?
Correct Answer: B
Recent Comments (The most recent comments are at the top.)
test - Nov 21, 2025
**Correct Answer: B**
### **Explanation**
Salesforce **criteria-based sharing rules** cannot use **encrypted fields** as criteria.
* If the Social Security Number field is configured with **“Encrypted” or “Shield Platform Encryption”**, it will **not appear** in the list of available fields when creating a sharing rule. * This is a security limitation because Salesforce cannot reliably evaluate encrypted values in sharing rule criteria.
---
### Why the others are incorrect:
**A. Architect does not have permission to Compliance fields**
* Field visibility issues due to permissions would **hide the field entirely**, but here the field exists; it’s specifically missing from **sharing rule criteria**.
**C. Architect’s profile does not have Field-Level Security**
* Missing FLS would prevent the architect from seeing the field anywhere, not just in sharing rules.
---
✔ **Correct: B — The field is encrypted, so it cannot be used in criteria-based sharing rules.**
test - Nov 21, 2025
**Correct Answer: B**
### **Explanation**
Salesforce **criteria-based sharing rules** cannot use **encrypted fields** as criteria.
* If the Social Security Number field is configured with **“Encrypted” or “Shield Platform Encryption”**, it will **not appear** in the list of available fields when creating a sharing rule. * This is a security limitation because Salesforce cannot reliably evaluate encrypted values in sharing rule criteria.
---
### Why the others are incorrect:
**A. Architect does not have permission to Compliance fields**
* Field visibility issues due to permissions would **hide the field entirely**, but here the field exists; it’s specifically missing from **sharing rule criteria**.
**C. Architect’s profile does not have Field-Level Security**
* Missing FLS would prevent the architect from seeing the field anywhere, not just in sharing rules.
---
✔ **Correct: B — The field is encrypted, so it cannot be used in criteria-based sharing rules.**
test - Nov 21, 2025
**Correct Answer: B**
### **Explanation**
Salesforce **criteria-based sharing rules** cannot use **encrypted fields** as criteria.
* If the Social Security Number field is configured with **“Encrypted” or “Shield Platform Encryption”**, it will **not appear** in the list of available fields when creating a sharing rule. * This is a security limitation because Salesforce cannot reliably evaluate encrypted values in sharing rule criteria.
---
### Why the others are incorrect:
**A. Architect does not have permission to Compliance fields**
* Field visibility issues due to permissions would **hide the field entirely**, but here the field exists; it’s specifically missing from **sharing rule criteria**.
**C. Architect’s profile does not have Field-Level Security**
* Missing FLS would prevent the architect from seeing the field anywhere, not just in sharing rules.
---
✔ **Correct: B — The field is encrypted, so it cannot be used in criteria-based sharing rules.**
Recent Comments (The most recent comments are at the top.)
**Correct Answer: B**
### **Explanation**
Salesforce **criteria-based sharing rules** cannot use **encrypted fields** as criteria.
* If the Social Security Number field is configured with **“Encrypted” or “Shield Platform Encryption”**, it will **not appear** in the list of available fields when creating a sharing rule.
* This is a security limitation because Salesforce cannot reliably evaluate encrypted values in sharing rule criteria.
---
### Why the others are incorrect:
**A. Architect does not have permission to Compliance fields**
* Field visibility issues due to permissions would **hide the field entirely**, but here the field exists; it’s specifically missing from **sharing rule criteria**.
**C. Architect’s profile does not have Field-Level Security**
* Missing FLS would prevent the architect from seeing the field anywhere, not just in sharing rules.
---
✔ **Correct: B — The field is encrypted, so it cannot be used in criteria-based sharing rules.**
**Correct Answer: B**
### **Explanation**
Salesforce **criteria-based sharing rules** cannot use **encrypted fields** as criteria.
* If the Social Security Number field is configured with **“Encrypted” or “Shield Platform Encryption”**, it will **not appear** in the list of available fields when creating a sharing rule.
* This is a security limitation because Salesforce cannot reliably evaluate encrypted values in sharing rule criteria.
---
### Why the others are incorrect:
**A. Architect does not have permission to Compliance fields**
* Field visibility issues due to permissions would **hide the field entirely**, but here the field exists; it’s specifically missing from **sharing rule criteria**.
**C. Architect’s profile does not have Field-Level Security**
* Missing FLS would prevent the architect from seeing the field anywhere, not just in sharing rules.
---
✔ **Correct: B — The field is encrypted, so it cannot be used in criteria-based sharing rules.**
**Correct Answer: B**
### **Explanation**
Salesforce **criteria-based sharing rules** cannot use **encrypted fields** as criteria.
* If the Social Security Number field is configured with **“Encrypted” or “Shield Platform Encryption”**, it will **not appear** in the list of available fields when creating a sharing rule.
* This is a security limitation because Salesforce cannot reliably evaluate encrypted values in sharing rule criteria.
---
### Why the others are incorrect:
**A. Architect does not have permission to Compliance fields**
* Field visibility issues due to permissions would **hide the field entirely**, but here the field exists; it’s specifically missing from **sharing rule criteria**.
**C. Architect’s profile does not have Field-Level Security**
* Missing FLS would prevent the architect from seeing the field anywhere, not just in sharing rules.
---
✔ **Correct: B — The field is encrypted, so it cannot be used in criteria-based sharing rules.**