Explanation:

This question tests the understanding of the difference between the classic Page Layout editor and the modern Lightning App Builder for configuring Lightning pages.

Why A is Correct: After installing a component from AppExchange and deploying My Domain (a prerequisite for using Lightning components), the next step is to use the Lightning App Builder. The Lightning App Builder is the dedicated, drag-and-drop tool for building and customizing Lightning pages (including Record Pages, Home Pages, and App Pages). You would edit the specific record page, find the new custom component in the list of available components, and drag it onto the desired region of the page.

Why B is Incorrect: The Page Layout editor is used for configuring the fields, related lists, and buttons that appear on a record's detail page in both Lightning Experience and Salesforce Classic. It is not the tool used for adding Lightning components. You cannot drag and drop Lightning components onto a layout using this editor.

Why C is Incorrect: This option is incorrect for two reasons:
It suggests using the Page Layout editor, which, as explained, is the wrong tool.
It mentions a Visualforce component. The question specifies a Lightning component installed from AppExchange. Visualforce and Lightning are different technologies with different setup requirements. A Visualforce component would be added via a Visualforce page placed on a page layout, not dragged directly onto a Lightning page.

Why D is Incorrect: There is no tool called "App Manager" used for editing page layouts or dragging components. The App Manager in Setup is where you view, create, and manage your apps (e.g., Sales App, Service App), not the pages within them.

Reference:
This question falls under the "User Interface" section of the exam guide. It specifically tests the knowledge of the Lightning App Builder as the correct tool for customizing Lightning pages by adding standard and custom Lightning components. The distinction between the Page Layout editor (for fields and related lists) and the Lightning App Builder (for components) is a fundamental concept for the Platform App Builder.

Explanation:

When replacing workflow rules and Apex triggers with Process Builder (or more broadly, Salesforce Flows, as Process Builder is being phased out in favor of Flows), an app builder must consider several factors to ensure a smooth transition and maintain system performance. Let’s evaluate each option:

Option A: Correct.
Avoid generating infinite loops. In Process Builder, actions that update records (e.g., updating a field on the same object or a related object) can inadvertently trigger the same process or other processes, causing infinite loops. This can lead to performance issues or hitting governor limits (e.g., CPU time or DML limits). App builders must design processes with checks (e.g., using a custom field to track whether the process has run) to prevent recursive updates. This is a critical consideration when replacing workflow rules and triggers, as both can also cause loops if not carefully managed.

Option B: Incorrect.
Apex has a different SOQL query limit than Flow. While Apex and Flow (including Process Builder) have governor limits, the SOQL query limit is the same for both in a single transaction (e.g., 100 SOQL queries in synchronous Apex or Flow). The key difference lies in how Apex and Flow handle execution (e.g., Apex allows more granular control, while Flow is declarative). However, this difference in SOQL limits is not a primary consideration when transitioning from workflow rules and triggers to Process Builder, as the focus is on functionality and performance, not a specific SOQL limit distinction.

Option C: Incorrect.
Create a process for each workflow rule. While it might seem logical to create a one-to-one replacement for each workflow rule with a Process Builder process, this is not a best practice. Combining multiple related workflow rules into a single Process Builder process (or Flow) is often more efficient, as it reduces the number of processes running, simplifies maintenance, and helps avoid hitting governor limits. Creating a process for each workflow rule is not a critical consideration and can lead to overcomplication.

Option D: Correct.
Combine actions when possible. To optimize performance and maintainability, app builders should consolidate related actions into a single Process Builder process (or Flow) whenever feasible. For example, multiple workflow rules that update different fields on the same object can be combined into one process with multiple actions. This reduces the number of processes executed, minimizes the risk of hitting governor limits, and simplifies the automation logic, making it easier to manage compared to fragmented workflow rules or triggers.

Key Considerations:
Infinite Loops (Option A): Process Builder processes can trigger other processes or themselves if they update records that meet the same criteria. To avoid this, app builders can use techniques like a checkbox field (e.g., Bypass_Automation__c) to prevent re-execution or carefully design entry criteria to avoid recursion.
Combining Actions (Option D): Consolidating actions into fewer processes improves performance and reduces complexity. For example, if multiple workflow rules update fields on an Opportunity when it reaches a certain stage, a single Process Builder process can handle all field updates in one go.
Transition Context: Salesforce is retiring Workflow Rules and Process Builder in favor of Flows (as of late 2025, per Salesforce’s roadmap). While the question specifies Process Builder, the same principles apply to Record-Triggered Flows, which are the recommended replacement. The considerations of avoiding loops and combining actions are equally relevant for Flows.
Governor Limits: Both Process Builder and Apex operate within Salesforce’s governor limits (e.g., 100 SOQL queries, 150 DML operations per transaction). Combining actions and avoiding loops helps stay within these limits.

References:
Salesforce Documentation: Process Builder Best Practices – Discusses avoiding recursive loops and optimizing processes.
Salesforce Help: Flow and Process Builder Limits – Covers governor limits and best practices for combining actions.
Trailhead: Business Process Automation – Explains transitioning from Workflow Rules and triggers to Process Builder or Flows, including combining actions.
Salesforce Blog: Flow Best Practices – Highlights avoiding loops and consolidating automation.

Explanation:

Why D is correct:
You can auto-submit Opportunities for approval the moment reps move them to the “Secure Commitment” stage with an after-save (Actions & Related Records) record-triggered Flow that uses the Submit for Approval core action. Submitting for approval requires an after-save context, which this flow type provides.

Why the others are incorrect:
A. Fast Field Updates (before-save) — Before-save flows can only update fields on the same record; they can’t run actions like Submit for Approval.
B. Custom button and screen flow — Still relies on users to click a button; it doesn’t eliminate manual submission.
C. Platform Event-Triggered flow — Meant for reacting to published platform events, not for submitting an Opportunity for approval when its stage changes.

Explanation:

Salesforce provides a standard Chatter component in the Lightning App Builder that allows app builders to easily add a Chatter feed to any Lightning record page, including those for custom objects.
This component displays posts, comments, and other activities related to the record on which it's placed.
To enable Chatter for a custom object and use this component, the app builder must first enable Feed Tracking for that custom object in Salesforce Setup.

Why other options are incorrect
B. Add the standard related list component:
The standard related list component displays related records (like related contacts or activities) and is not designed to show the Chatter feed.
C. Add a custom Chatter feed component:
While it's possible to create custom components to display Chatter feeds, it's unnecessary in this scenario as Salesforce provides a standard component that fulfills the requirement directly.
D. Add the Chatter feed component from the AppExchange:
Similar to option C, this is an unnecessary step unless specific advanced functionality is required that isn't available with the standard component. The standard Chatter feed component is readily available within the Lightning App Builder.

Explanation:

To achieve a streamlined data entry experience followed by a context-specific full record view, Salesforce offers a powerful combination of Record Types and Page Layouts. Here's how option A accomplishes that:

✅ Why A is correct:
Record Types allow you to define different business processes and associate them with different page layouts.
By making Opportunity Type a required field on the initial layout, you ensure users select the type before saving.
Once the record is saved, Salesforce automatically applies the page layout associated with the selected record type, revealing additional fields relevant to that type.
You can use automation (e.g., Process Builder or Flow) to set the record type based on the selected Opportunity Type if needed.
This approach keeps the initial form minimal and contextually expands the record after creation—exactly what the scenario describes.

❌ Why the other options are incorrect:
B Page layouts based on user profile don’t dynamically change based on Opportunity Type. This limits flexibility and doesn’t meet the requirement of showing fields based on record content.
C Sharing rules control record access, not field visibility. They don’t affect which fields are shown on a layout.
D Manually expanding hidden sections is not dynamic or scalable. It relies on user behavior and doesn’t tailor the layout based on Opportunity Type.

📘 Reference:
Salesforce Help: Record Types
Trailhead: Customize a Salesforce Object