Explanation:

Summary:
To allow field consultants to capture images on their mobile devices while keeping the standard "Edit" page for desktop users, the architect should recommend using a Lightning Component to override the "Edit" action for the mobile form factor only. This approach minimizes customization and avoids disrupting the existing user experience for customer service representatives.

Correct Option:

A. Use Lightning Component as an override for "Edit" action on mobile view allowing image capture feature. No Change required for desktop users.
Salesforce Lightning Experience allows for different overrides for actions based on the form factor—specifically, a desktop view and a mobile view. By creating a custom Lightning Component that handles image capture and then setting it as an override for the mobile "Edit" action on the Case object, the architect can achieve the requirement without any changes to the desktop experience. The customer service representatives will continue to see and use the standard "Edit" page they are accustomed to. This method is the most direct and efficient way to meet the business and technical constraints of the problem.

Incorrect Options:

B. Use Lightning Component as an override for "Edit" action on lightning experience allowing image capture feature. Detect the form factor of the device and redirect the user to the default not-overridden view.
Reasoning: This approach is unnecessarily complex. Overriding the "Edit" action for the entire Lightning Experience and then trying to redirect desktop users back to the standard page introduces unnecessary code and potential points of failure. The platform already provides a simpler, built-in solution for handling form factor-specific overrides, making this approach less efficient and more difficult to maintain.

C. Create a separate button “Edit in Mobile”, which opens a custom lightning component that will allow field consultants to add an image. No change required for desktop users.
Reasoning: While this option would work, it is not the most user-friendly or elegant solution. It introduces a new button for a standard action ("Edit"), which can confuse users and lead to inconsistent user interface behavior. The goal is to provide a seamless experience, and overriding the existing "Edit" action is a cleaner solution that leverages the platform's native capabilities without adding clutter to the page layout.

Summary:
The business goal is to organize and restrict the visibility of a large number of list views (>50) based on user geography. The solution must be scalable and manageable, allowing sales operations to grant or revoke access to groups of users (e.g., all users in the "North America Sales" group) for specific sets of list views without having to manage permissions on a per-user basis.

Correct Option:

C. Share the list views with the appropriate public group.
This is the correct and scalable approach. Public Groups are the designated sharing mechanism for list views. By creating a public group for each geography (e.g., "EMEA Sales Users"), administrators can share the relevant list views with that group. All members of the group will then see the list view, and management is centralized, which is essential when dealing with more than 50 list views.

Incorrect Options:

A. Share the list views with the appropriate individual users.
While technically possible, this is not a scalable or manageable solution. For a large organization, manually sharing dozens of list views with hundreds of individual users would be an administrative nightmare and prone to errors. Public Groups are the intended tool for this group-based management.

B. Share the list views with the appropriate queue.
Queues are designed for managing record ownership and work items (like Leads or Cases), not for managing functional groupings of users for visibility purposes like list views. Using a queue for this would be a misuse of the feature and could interfere with its primary function for assigning and routing records.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: Control List View Access

Summary:
The requirement is to grant granular, record-specific Edit access to a private custom object based on a many-to-many relationship defined in a junction object. The solution must dynamically grant access when a user is added as a presenter and revoke it when they are removed. This requires a programmatic solution that can create and delete sharing records in response to changes in the junction object.

Correct Option:

C. Trigger on Presenter junction object that uses Apex Managed sharing to add or remove access to the related Presentation record.
This is the correct and most robust solution. An Apex trigger on the Presenter__c junction object can fire after insert and after delete. When a new junction record is created, the trigger can create an Apex Managed Share (Presentation__Share) granting the specified user Read/Edit access to the related Presentation__c record. When the junction record is deleted, the trigger can find and delete the corresponding share, dynamically managing access.

Incorrect Options:

A. Give Edit rights to the Presentation record via a Permission set that is given to the Presenters for a record.
This is incorrect and not scalable. Permission sets grant object-level or org-wide permissions, not record-level access. You cannot use a permission set to grant a user Edit rights to one specific Presentation__c record without granting them access to all records or using a different mechanism for the record access itself.

B. Trigger on Presenter junction object that adds the user to the Sales Team for the Presentation record.
This is incorrect because "Sales Team" is specific to the Opportunity object. For a custom object like Presentation__c, there is no standard "Team" feature. The equivalent functionality for a custom object is achieved through Apex Managed Sharing, as described in option C.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: Apex Managed Sharing

Summary:
Apex code runs in system context by default, meaning it bypasses all user-level Field-Level Security (FLS) and object permissions. The custom class is updating fields that some users are not permitted to edit. The solution must enforce FLS checks within the Apex code itself to respect the user's profile and permission set settings, ensuring the code does not perform updates the current user is not authorized to make.

Correct Option:

C. Use the IsUpdateable() Apex method to test each field prior to allowing update.
This is the correct and most precise solution. Before updating a field in the Apex class, the code should call Schema.SObjectType.Opportunity.fields.MyField__c.isUpdateable() to check if the current user has permission to edit that specific field. If the method returns false, the code should skip updating that field. This programmatically enforces FLS within the system context.

Incorrect Options:

A. Add the With Sharing keyword to the class.
This keyword enforces record-level sharing rules (e.g., which opportunities the user can see), but it does not enforce field-level security. A class declared with sharing running in system context will still bypass FLS and can update read-only fields.

B. Put the code in an inner class that uses the With Sharing keyword.
This is incorrect for the same reason as option A. Nesting the code in an inner class with with sharing only affects record visibility for SOQL queries. It has no impact on the enforcement of field-level permissions for DML operations. The FLS check must be explicit.

Reference:
Salesforce Apex Developer Guide: Enforcing Field-Level Security

Summary:
The core challenge is managing a Case object with 400+ fields across 8 different processes, requiring each process to display only its relevant fields. The solution must be scalable, maintainable, and prevent layout sprawl. Using a separate page layout for each record type is the traditional method, but it becomes difficult to manage when many fields are shared across layouts, leading to redundancy and update inefficiencies.

Correct Option:

A. Use Dynamic Forms with different field sections representing the relevant fields per case type, and control visibility of sections by Case Record Type value.
This is the most modern and scalable recommended solution. With Dynamic Forms, you can build a single, unified Lightning Record Page for Case. On this page, you create sections for each case type and use declarative visibility rules (e.g., "Show this section when Record Type equals 'Type A'"). This centralizes management, reduces redundancy, and makes it easy to add or modify fields for specific types without editing multiple layouts.

Incorrect Options:

B. Use different Page Layouts per case type, each representing the relevant fields per case type.
While this is a functional and traditional approach, it is not the most efficient recommendation for this scale. With 400 fields and 8 record types, maintaining 8 separate page layouts would be cumbersome. A change to a common field would need to be made across multiple layouts, making this method prone to error and harder to maintain than a single Dynamic Form.

C. Use a custom LWC to override the View action of the Case object, and a Custom Metadata Type to define the relevant fields per case type.
This is an overly complex and custom-coded solution. It introduces unnecessary development, testing, and long-term maintenance overhead. Salesforce provides a powerful, fully declarative tool (Dynamic Forms) that solves this exact problem natively, making this option not recommended.

Reference:
Salesforce Help: Dynamic Forms