Explanation:

Even if users can’t see a record in a list view, they may still find it through global search if they have object-level or record-level access (such as “Read” permission) to that object.

To fully restrict access to “Deal” records, an administrator must remove both object-level permission and tab visibility:

Permissions (Profile or Permission Set)
Remove “Read” access for the “Deal” object from the profile or permission set assigned to service users.
This ensures users cannot query or view Deal records anywhere — including global search, reports, or lookups.

Tab Visibility
Set the Deal tab visibility to “Tab Hidden” for the service team’s profile.
This prevents the tab from appearing in the App Launcher or navigation menus.

When both are removed:
Users cannot access or search Deal records.
The records are excluded from global search results automatically, since Salesforce search respects object-level permissions.

❌ Incorrect Options:

A. Record setting and search index
There is no “record setting” configuration in Salesforce setup.
“Search index” updates automatically based on permissions — you cannot manually control search index visibility.

C. App permissions and search terms
“App permissions” define access to apps or certain actions (like “Modify All Data”), not specific records.
“Search terms” are user-input-based and cannot restrict object visibility.

D. Page layouts and field-level security
These control what fields users see once they have access to a record.
They don’t restrict the ability to see or find records — so users could still search and open the record, just with hidden fields.

Summary:
To fully restrict access to Deal records, the administrator must remove object-level Read permission and hide the tab from the service users’ profile.
Without Read permission, Salesforce search cannot surface the records, ensuring complete data isolation.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: Object Permissions
Salesforce Help: Control Search Results Visibility

Explanation:

When a custom field is referenced in other parts of Salesforce configuration, its data type often becomes locked to prevent breaking those dependencies. A Formula Field is a very common and restrictive dependency.

Let's break down each option:

A. Formula fields
Correct. This is the most likely culprit. If another formula field (on the same object or a related object) references this custom picklist field, you cannot change the picklist field's data type. The formula's logic is built expecting a picklist value, and changing the field to a text field would invalidate that logic and cause errors. Salesforce prevents this change to maintain data integrity.

B. Record types
Incorrect. While a record type can be configured to show or hide this picklist field or control its available values, the record type configuration itself does not lock the field's core data type from being changed.

C. Visualforce
Incorrect. While a Visualforce page might reference the field, this typically does not prevent a data type change in Setup. You would get a warning, but it would not be a hard blocker. The page would just break after the change, so it's not recommended, but it's not the primary preventative restriction.

D. JavaScript
Incorrect. Custom JavaScript (e.g., in a Lightning Web Component or a sidebar customizer) is not checked by Salesforce's dependency engine when you try to change a field type in Setup. Like Visualforce, the code would break, but it won't prevent the administrator from making the change.

Summary:
Formula fields create a hard dependency because their logic is directly tied to the data type of the fields they reference. Salesforce proactively blocks the change to prevent widespread system failure.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: "Considerations for Changing Custom Field Types"
The documentation explicitly states that you cannot change a field's type if it is "referenced elsewhere in a formula," confirming that formula fields are a primary restriction.

Explanation:

Why B Is Correct
Multi-factor authentication (MFA) is the single most effective way to prevent unauthorized access.
It requires something you know (password) + something you have (phone/app/authenticator) — so even if credentials are stolen via phishing, keylogger, or breach, attackers cannot log in.
Salesforce now mandates MFA for all direct logins (as of 2022–2025 rollouts).

Quick Setup (60 seconds):
1. Setup → Settings → Identity → Multi-Factor Authentication → Enable
2. Roll out via Permission Sets or Profiles → “Require Multi-Factor Authentication”
3. Users auto-prompted on next login → register authenticator app or security key

Done — zero trust enforced, phishing attacks neutralized, compliance (GDPR, HIPAA, SOC2) satisfied.

Why the Other Options Fail
Option A – Disable TLS requirements for sessions is security suicide. TLS encrypts data in transit — disabling it exposes passwords, sessions, and all data to man-in-the-middle attacks. This is explicitly forbidden by Salesforce and every security standard. It’s the opposite of preventing unauthorized access.

Option C – Customize organization wide defaults controls record visibility, not login security. Even with Private OWD, if someone has the password, they’re in. This is a data sharing setting, not an authentication control — classic exam trap.

Option D – Enable caching and autocomplete on login page is dangerously wrong. This stores usernames/passwords in browser — making shared computers, shoulder surfing, and malware attacks trivial. Salesforce disables autocomplete by default for security. Enabling it invites unauthorized access.

Reference:
“Require multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all users to prevent unauthorized access, even if passwords are compromised.”
— Salesforce Help: Require Multi-Factor Authentication

Verification Steps
1. Enable MFA requirement on a test profile.
2. Try login with correct password only → Blocked: “Verify your identity”
3. Enter correct TOTP from authenticator app → Login succeeds
4. Try stolen password from another device → Fails permanently
5. Check Setup → Security → Login History → See MFA verifications

Explanation:

The requirement is to enforce a specific sequence in the Case Status field, preventing users from moving a case backward to a previous status. This requires a business logic check that can prevent a record from being saved, which is the function of a Validation Rule.

Let's break down each option:

A. Validation rules
Correct. A Validation Rule can check the previous value of the Status field (using the PRIORVALUE function) and compare it to the new value. The administrator can write a rule that fires an error if the new status is "behind" the old status in the defined Path sequence. This will prevent the user from saving the record with the invalid status, thereby enforcing the forward-only progression.

B. Global Value Picklists
Incorrect. A Global Value Set ensures consistent picklist values across different fields, but it does not control the order in which users can select those values. It cannot prevent a user from choosing a previous value.

C. Predefined field Values
Incorrect. This is a vague term, but it generally refers to setting default values. It does not provide a mechanism to block certain value changes based on business logic.

D. Dependent Picklists
Incorrect. A Dependent Picklist controls the available values in one picklist based on the value of another controlling field. It does not control the sequence of values selected in a single field over time.

Sample Validation Rule Logic:
The administrator could create a validation rule on the Case object with a formula similar to this, assuming the Path stages in order are "New", "In Progress", "On Hold", "Closed":

CASE( PRIORVALUE(Status),
"New", NOT(ISPICKVAL(Status, "In Progress")),
"In Progress", NOT(ISPICKVAL(Status, "On Hold")),
"On Hold", NOT(ISPICKVAL(Status, "Closed")),
false
)
Translation: "If the case was previously 'New', it can only be moved to 'In Progress'. If it was 'In Progress', it can only be moved to 'On Hold', etc. Any other status change will throw an error."

Summary:
While Path provides a visual guide, it does not enforce the sequence. A Validation Rule is the declarative tool used to enforce this kind of data integrity and business process.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: "Validation Rule Examples"
The official documentation provides examples of using the PRIORVALUE function to compare old and new field values, which is the core concept needed for this solution.

Explanation:

✅ Why This Is Correct

D. External ID
An External ID is a custom field (Text, Number, or Email) that is:

- Marked specifically to store unique identifiers from external systems
- Used during data import or update to match records without relying on Salesforce Record IDs
- Supports upserts (update if exists, insert if not) via tools like Data Loader, Data Import Wizard, and APIs

This is the best practice for integrating Salesforce with other systems like ERP, marketing platforms, or legacy databases.

❌ Why These Are Incorrect
A. Rich Text Field
Rich Text fields are for formatted content, not for storing or matching unique identifiers.
They are not searchable or usable in upsert operations.

B. Record ID
While Record IDs are unique, they are Salesforce-generated and not known by external systems.
Not ideal for cross-system integration unless you're exporting and re-importing within Salesforce.

C. Auto-Number Field
Auto-Number fields generate sequential values, but they are Salesforce-specific and not tied to external systems.
Cannot be used for matching external data unless explicitly aligned, which is rare and risky.

🔗 Reference
Salesforce Help: External ID Fields
Trailhead: Import and Export with Data Management Tools