Explanation:

Why this is correct
In Salesforce, merging records (Accounts, Contacts, or Leads) requires the user to have Delete permission on that object. Even if the user is the owner of both Accounts and has Read/Write access, the merge action won’t proceed without Delete on Account. That’s because the merge process effectively deletes the losing record(s) and consolidates data into the master record—hence the need for Delete.

Why the others are wrong?

A. Only administrators have permission to merge records.
Not true. Non-admin users can merge records as long as they have the right object permissions (including Delete) and appropriate access to the records being merged.

B. The user is assigned to the wrong territory.
Territory assignment affects record access/visibility, not the ability to merge once the user already owns and can edit the records. Territory is irrelevant here.

C. The Account matching rules are not set.
Matching/duplicate rules help identify potential duplicates and control whether to allow/block saving duplicates. They are not required to perform a manual merge of two records the user already selected; lacking a matching rule doesn’t cause a merge error.

Key takeaway
To merge Accounts, the user must:
Have Read and Edit on Account (met),
Be able to access both records (met; user is owner), and
Have Delete on Account (missing → causes the error).
Grant the user Delete permission on Accounts (via profile or permission set), and the merge will work.

Explanation:

The scenario describes a two-tiered password policy: a baseline for all users and a more stringent policy specifically for administrators. The key is to understand where Salesforce allows you to define and enforce different password rules for different sets of users.

Why C is Correct: Profile-Specific Password Policies
Salesforce allows for granular password policies to be defined at the Profile level. This is the mechanism designed explicitly for this use case.
The administrator at Ursa Major Solar has already set the organization-wide default (8 characters, 90 days). However, the requirement is to create a stricter rule for a specific group of users (those with the System Administrator profile).
How it works:
By navigating to Setup -> Administration -> Users -> Profiles, selecting the "System Administrator" profile, and then clicking on "Password Policies," the admin can override the org-wide default. Here, they can set the Minimum Password Length to 15 and the Password Expiration period to 30 days.
Result:
Any user assigned to the System Administrator profile will be governed by these stricter rules, while all other users will remain under the more lenient organization-wide policy. This perfectly satisfies the security team's new directive.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. Organization-wide password policies:
This is where the baseline policy for all users is set (Setup -> Security -> Session Settings). Changing this would affect every user in the org, forcing all sales reps, service agents, etc., to have 15-character passwords that expire every 30 days. This contradicts the scenario, which requires different rules for different user types.
B. Password complexity requirements on the permission set:
This is a distractor. Permission Sets are used to grant access (to apps, objects, fields, etc.), but they do not contain settings for password policies like length and expiration. Password complexity (requiring a mix of letters, numbers, and symbols) is part of the org-wide policy, not something assignable via Permission Sets.
D. Session Settings on the User record:
Session Settings (which include session timeouts and other security controls) are configured at the org-wide or profile level. There is no option on an individual User record to set a custom password expiration period or minimum length for that single user. This level of granularity is managed at the profile level.

Conclusion
When a security policy requires different password rules for different classes of users (e.g., standard users vs. administrators), the correct and only supported method is to define those stricter rules on the specific Profile assigned to those users. The System Administrator profile has its own Password Policy section that overrides the organization-wide defaults.

Key Topic:
Salesforce Help & Training documentation on "Password Policies," specifically the section explaining that you can set password policies for the entire organization and then define more restrictive policies for specific administrator profiles.

Explanation:

Delegated Administration in Salesforce allows you to assign limited administrative privileges to trusted users without giving them full system administrator access. This helps distribute admin responsibilities while maintaining control over sensitive configurations.

Here’s what delegated administrators can do:

A. Set up users and password management ✅
They can create and manage users within specific roles or profiles, reset passwords, and unlock users.
D. Make updates to permission set configurations ✅
Delegated admins can assign and remove permission sets for users, helping manage access without modifying profiles directly.

❌ Why the other options are incorrect:

B. Configure updates to sharing rules ❌
Sharing rules are part of security and access control, which delegated admins cannot modify.
C. Manage custom objects and customize nearly every aspect ❌
Delegated admins have limited customization rights. They cannot manage custom objects or make broad system changes.

🔗 Reference:
Salesforce Help: Delegated Administration Overview
Salesforce Trailhead: User Management

Explanation:

Correct Option:

✅ Option D: Consolidate automation tools.
This issue typically occurs when multiple automation tools (such as Workflow Rules, Process Builder, and Flows) are acting on the same object and field. For example, a workflow rule might be set to overwrite a phone field with a default value when certain criteria are met, while a flow or process builder might be updating it differently. This creates automation “collisions,” where the most recent automation execution overwrites the user’s update, making it look like the field “reverted.” The best practice in Salesforce today is to consolidate automation into a single tool (preferably Flow, since Workflow and Process Builder are being retired). By consolidating and simplifying, the administrator ensures there is only one source of truth, eliminates conflicting updates, and resolves the phone number reversion problem.

Incorrect Options Explanations:

❌ Option A: Schedule Apex jobs.
Scheduled Apex runs at specific times and is generally used for batch updates, system maintenance, or time-based processes. There is no indication in this scenario that Apex is causing the problem. The issue is real-time field updates being overwritten, which is tied to automation conflicts, not scheduled jobs.

❌ Option B: Delete all workflow rules.
While workflows could be part of the problem, deleting all of them is extreme and dangerous. Workflow rules may serve valid business needs, like sending emails or simple field updates. Blindly deleting them without evaluating could break critical processes. The proper solution is to evaluate, consolidate, and migrate to modern automation (Flows), not a blanket deletion.

❌ Option C: Add an invocable process.
Adding more automation would actually worsen the problem, not fix it. Invocable processes are designed to be called by other automation, but introducing another layer of automation increases the chance of overwriting fields. Since the issue is caused by conflicting automation, adding more is not the answer.

🔗 Reference: Salesforce Help – Automate Processes with Flow

✨ Key Takeaway: When fields “revert” after updates, it usually means multiple automation tools are conflicting. The solution is to consolidate automation into Flow for consistency and control.

Explanation:

This question is about troubleshooting a specific automation (a Flow) that is failing to deliver its intended outcome (sending an email). The key is to find the most direct evidence of what happened to the emails themselves.

Why C is Correct:
The Email Logs are the definitive source for tracking the delivery status of every email sent by Salesforce. They show whether an email was sent, queued, or if it failed (and why it failed, e.g., invalid address, exceeded sending limits, etc.). By checking the Email Logs, the administrator can filter for the specific emails sent by the Flow and see their exact status, providing immediate evidence of whether the emails were even dispatched from Salesforce.

Why A is Incorrect:
Paused Flow Interviews show instances where a Flow has stopped because it requires user input (like a Screen Element) or due to a fault setting. Since this Flow is designed to send emails automatically and the issue is with email delivery, not the Flow's execution halting, it's unlikely the problem will be found here. The Flow is likely running to completion but the email action within it is failing.

Why B is Incorrect:
The Process Automation Settings page is used to enable or disable automation features (like Flows and Processes) for the entire org. While you should check here to ensure automation is active, it's a broad control and not the right tool for investigating the specific failure of individual email deliveries from a functioning Flow.

Why D is Incorrect:
The Setup Audit Trail logs who made configuration changes in Setup. It would show if someone modified the Flow or email settings, but it does not provide any information about the runtime behavior of the Flow or the delivery status of the emails it tried to send.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: "Monitor Email"
This documentation details how to use the Email Log files to see the status of sent emails. It is the primary tool for administrators to verify email delivery and diagnose failures, making it the most direct and appropriate place to start this investigation.