Explanation:

Why this is right
In most orgs, OWD for Accounts is Private or Public Read Only, so peers in the same role can’t edit each other’s accounts by default (role hierarchy only rolls up, not across).
A sharing rule can grant lateral (peer) access: “Share Accounts owned by members of the Account Services role with the Account Services role (or a public group containing those users) as Read/Write.”
Once they have Edit via sharing, users who already have the Transfer Record permission (common on sales profiles) can also change ownership of those records. The question focuses on what to configure to enable access across the team; the clean, least-privilege configuration is a sharing rule.
Practical setup: Create a public group “Account Services Team” (contains the role or specific users) → Owner-based sharing rule:
Owned by: Account Services Team
Shared with: Account Services Team
Access: Read/Write

Why the other options are not the best

A. Set OWD = Public Read Only
Gives read to everyone, but not edit, and still doesn’t address change owner. You’d still need additional sharing or permissions.

C. Profile: Modify All on Account
Overly broad. Modify All grants edit/delete/transfer on all Accounts in the org, not just peers in the team—violates least-privilege.

D. Enable Account Teams with Read access
Account Teams are per-record and (as stated) only Read. You’d have to add team members to every account and still wouldn’t get edit or transfer unless you set higher team access. It’s also operationally heavy compared with one sharing rule.

Small checklist
Ensure the users’ profile/perm set includes Transfer Record (to change ownership).
Keep OWD as-is (Private/PRO) and rely on the sharing rule to provide peer Read/Write.
Optionally, constrain to just that team via a public group so you’re not exposing edit access beyond the intended audience.

Explanation:

The requirement is to show a button or link (a component) on the Account page only when a specific, aggregate condition is met on its related Opportunities. This requires two parts: 1) calculating the aggregate data, and 2) using that data to control the component's visibility.

Let's analyze the options:

A. Component Visibility filter (Correct)
This is the feature that will actually show or hide the component (e.g., a Custom Button or Lightning Component) on the Account Lightning Record Page. You can set a filter that says "Show this component only when a specific field's value meets a criteria." In this case, the criteria would be based on the field created by the Roll-Up Summary.

B. Formula field (Incorrect)
A formula field on the Account could not perform this calculation directly. It cannot perform a COUNT of related records that also have a condition (Amount > $10,000). This type of aggregate counting is the specific purpose of a Roll-Up Summary Field.

C. Roll-Up Summary field (Correct)
This is the essential first step. You must create a Roll-Up Summary Field on the Account object. This field would be configured to:

Summarized Object: Opportunities
Filter Criteria: Opportunity Stage NOT EQUAL TO 'Closed Won', 'Closed Lost' AND Amount GREATER THAN 10000
Roll-Up Type: COUNT()
This field will automatically hold the value of how many qualifying open opportunities exist for the account.

D. Dynamic Forms (Incorrect)
Dynamic Forms control the visibility of individual fields on a record page, not other components like buttons or links. The "option" to start the escalation process is likely a button or action, not a data field, so Dynamic Forms would not be the correct tool.

Reference:
Roll-Up Summary Field (RSF): Used to calculate aggregate values (COUNT, SUM, MIN, MAX) from child records related to a parent via a Master-Detail or Lookup relationship. It is the only declarative way to perform a conditional count as described.
Component Visibility in Lightning App Builder: Allows you to set conditional rules that determine when a component is displayed on a Lightning Page. The rule can be based on the value of a field on the record, such as the Roll-Up Summary field.

Explanation:

Salesforce releases new features in seasonal upgrades (Spring, Summer, Winter), and sandboxes are upgraded in waves. If the source sandbox is on a newer release than the destination sandbox, some metadata may be incompatible due to version differences.

🔹 Why Option D Is Correct:
Refreshing the destination sandbox updates it to the same release version as the source sandbox.
This ensures metadata compatibility, allowing the change set to deploy successfully.
It’s the recommended approach when dealing with version mismatches between environments.

❌ Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:
A. Make the changes manually through the user interface in the source org
The issue is with deployment to the destination org, not editing the source.
Manual changes don’t solve version incompatibility.

B. Create a new sandbox on the new release version and deploy the change set to the new org
This creates a new destination, not a solution for the existing one.
It’s unnecessary if you can simply refresh the current destination sandbox.
C. Submit a ticket to Salesforce to update the source org to the latest release
The source org is already on the latest release.
The problem is with the destination org being outdated, not the source.

🔗 Reference:
Sandbox Refresh and Release Schedule
Change Set Deployment Best Practices

Explanation:

A. Restore both the Account and Product master records from the Recycle Bin.
In a many-to-many relationship (using a junction object like "Review"), if both master records are deleted, the junction record is permanently deleted and cannot be restored. The only scenario in which undeleting a master record restores the detail records is when only one master record was deleted. Since both were deleted, the junction object records are permanently removed. This option is the only one that acknowledges the need to restore both parents. However, based on Salesforce documentation, restoring both parents will not restore the junction records. Therefore, none of the provided options accurately describe the outcome. The most correct option based on standard Salesforce behavior is that the records cannot be restored.

Explanation of incorrect options

B. Restore the Review junction object record from the Recycle Bin.
This is incorrect because junction object records are hard-deleted when both of their master parent records are deleted, and thus are not available for restoration in the Recycle Bin.

C. Restore either the Account or Product master records from the Recycle Bin.
This is incorrect. If you undelete a master record, it restores the detail records only if the other master record is still present. In this case, since both master records were deleted, undeleting only one will not restore the junction record.

D. The Review object records are permanently deleted without the ability to restore.
This is the correct outcome for a scenario where both master records linked to a junction object are deleted. However, the provided correct answer suggests a restoration process is possible. This is a discrepancy with standard Salesforce logic. The most accurate reflection of Salesforce functionality is that the Review records are permanently deleted. In the context of the exam, the question is flawed. But since the other options are technically incorrect, this is the best, albeit flawed, answer.

Flaws in the premise
The question presents a flawed scenario by offering a "correct" answer that contradicts standard Salesforce behavior for Master-Detail relationships and junction objects. For a junction object with two Master-Detail relationships, if both master records are deleted, the detail records are permanently deleted and cannot be restored from the Recycle Bin. A correct action would require using a data recovery service or restoring from a backup, which are not listed as options.

Explanation:

B. Use Lightning Object Creator to create the object and also import the data.
To meet Ursa Major Solar’s (UMS) requirement to track installation information in Salesforce instead of a spreadsheet, the administrator should use Lightning Object Creator. This tool allows administrators to create a custom object directly from a spreadsheet by uploading the file (e.g., a CSV containing customer name, address, purchase and installation dates, configuration specs, and installer instructions). Lightning Object Creator automatically generates the custom object, creates fields based on the spreadsheet columns, and imports the data into the new object in a single process. This is a declarative, user-friendly solution that requires no coding and is ideal for converting spreadsheet-based data into a Salesforce custom object.
Reference:
Salesforce Help - “Lightning Object Creator” (Setup > Object Manager > Create > Lightning Object Creator).

Why the other options are incorrect:
A. Use Salesforce REST API to create the object and also import the data.
Using the Salesforce REST API requires advanced development skills to create a custom object (via Metadata API) and import data (via Bulk API or REST API). This approach is complex, time-consuming, and error-prone for a non-technical administrator compared to the declarative Lightning Object Creator, which handles both object creation and data import in a single, guided process.
Reference:
Salesforce Developer Documentation - “REST API” and “Metadata API”.

C. Use Schema Builder to create the object and also import the data.
Schema Builder allows administrators to create custom objects and fields visually but does not support data import directly. After creating the object in Schema Builder, the administrator would need to use a separate tool (e.g., Data Import Wizard or Data Loader) to import the spreadsheet data, requiring additional steps. Lightning Object Creator is more efficient as it combines object creation and data import.
Reference:
Salesforce Help - “Schema Builder” (Setup > Schema Builder).

D. Use Object Manager to create the object and also import the data.
Object Manager allows administrators to create a custom object and define fields manually, but it does not natively support importing data from a spreadsheet in the same process. After creating the object, the administrator would need to use a separate tool like the Data Import Wizard or Data Loader to import the data, making this a two-step process. Lightning Object Creator streamlines both tasks into one workflow.
Reference:
Salesforce Help - “Object Manager” (Setup > Object Manager).

Additional Notes:

Steps to Implement:
Go to Setup > Object Manager > Create > Lightning Object Creator.
Upload the spreadsheet (e.g., CSV) containing the installation data (customer name, address, purchase/installation dates, configuration specs, installer instructions).
Follow the wizard to map spreadsheet columns to fields, automatically creating a custom object (e.g., “Installations”).
Review and confirm the field types (e.g., Text for customer name, Date for purchase/installation dates, Text Area for specs/instructions).
Import the data into the new object during the creation process.
Assign permissions to the operations team via Profiles or Permission Sets (Setup > Profiles > [Profile] > Object Permissions).
Update the page layout to ensure all fields are displayed (Setup > Object Manager > [Installations] > Page Layouts).

Considerations:
Ensure the spreadsheet is clean and formatted correctly (e.g., consistent column headers, no missing values) to avoid import errors.
Verify that the org has sufficient custom object licenses available.
If additional relationships are needed (e.g., linking Installations to Accounts or Contacts), add lookup or master-detail fields after object creation.
Test the process in a sandbox to ensure the object structure and data import meet UMS’s needs.

Post-Implementation:
Create Reports or List Views to help the operations team view and manage installation records.
Train the team to use the new custom object instead of the spreadsheet.
Optionally, automate data imports for future updates using Data Loader or scheduled Flows if the operations team continues to receive spreadsheet data.