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:
Universal Containers has expanded to sell virtual containers for data storage. Virtual container work orders are provisioned immediately by the system and therefore cannot be changed by a sales rep. What is an optimal approach to implement these requirements?
Correct Answer: C
Recent Comments (The most recent comments are at the top.)
test - Nov 21, 2025
**Correct Answer: C**
### **Explanation**
The requirement is that **sales reps should not be able to edit virtual container Work Orders**, because these are **system-provisioned and immutable**. The optimal approach is to **control this via profile permissions**, which is the most straightforward and maintainable solution.
* By **removing the Edit permission** on the Work Order object from the Sales Rep profile, all Work Orders—including virtual container ones—become read-only for them. * This approach enforces the rule at the **security level**, rather than relying on page layouts or sharing, which are more about **UI and access**, not object-level enforcement.
---
### Why the others are suboptimal:
**A. Change the Record Type/Page Layout to Read Only**
* Page layouts only control what fields are visible/editable in the UI. * Users could still edit records via **API, Data Loader, or other interfaces**. * Does not fully enforce business rule.
**B. Implement a sharing rule to make Work Orders Read**
* Sharing rules control **record-level access**, not object-level edit permissions. * Sales reps could still edit if they **own** the record or have higher privileges.
---
✔ **Correct: C — Remove Edit permission from the Sales Rep profile.**...
Recent Comments (The most recent comments are at the top.)
**Correct Answer: C**
### **Explanation**
The requirement is that **sales reps should not be able to edit virtual container Work Orders**, because these are **system-provisioned and immutable**. The optimal approach is to **control this via profile permissions**, which is the most straightforward and maintainable solution.
* By **removing the Edit permission** on the Work Order object from the Sales Rep profile, all Work Orders—including virtual container ones—become read-only for them.
* This approach enforces the rule at the **security level**, rather than relying on page layouts or sharing, which are more about **UI and access**, not object-level enforcement.
---
### Why the others are suboptimal:
**A. Change the Record Type/Page Layout to Read Only**
* Page layouts only control what fields are visible/editable in the UI.
* Users could still edit records via **API, Data Loader, or other interfaces**.
* Does not fully enforce business rule.
**B. Implement a sharing rule to make Work Orders Read**
* Sharing rules control **record-level access**, not object-level edit permissions.
* Sales reps could still edit if they **own** the record or have higher privileges.
---
✔ **Correct: C — Remove Edit permission from the Sales Rep profile.**...