Salesforce AP-223 CPQ and Billing Consultant Accredited Professional Exam Practice Test

SKU rationalization reduces catalog complexity and improves CPQ performance by merging duplicate or similar products.

✔ A — Same product names with different attribute valuesUse Product Options, Attributes, or Configuration Attributes instead of separate SKUs.

✔ C — Same product names with different bulk discount levelsUse Discount Schedules instead of duplicating products.

✔ E — Same product names commonly found in the same bundleUse one product with options/rules, rather than multiple redundant SKUs.

Why others are incorrect:Option

Why Wrong

B — Same products with different serial numbers

Serial numbers belong on Assets, not separate products.

D — Same names with different terms

Use Subscription Term or Term picklist, not separate SKUs.

Thus A, C, E is correct.

Successful exit criteria for User Acceptance Testing (UAT) is:

✔ Customer Acceptance Sign-offThis means:

All test cases have passed

All critical defects are resolved

Stakeholders approve the solution

The project is cleared to move into deployment

This is documented in Salesforce Implementation Lifecycle.

Why other choices are incorrect:Option

Why Wrong

A — Change Order

Change orders happen when new scope is introduced, not an exit criterion for UAT.

C — Design Document

Completed earlier during design phase.

D — Sandbox to Prod Migration

Happens after UAT sign-off.

E — Deployment plan

Prepared before deployment, not a sign of UAT completion.

Thus B is the only correct exit criterion.

Universal Containers wants:

ARR__c on Opportunity Line Item (Opportunity Product)

But ARR is currently on SBQQ__QuoteLine__c

They want ARR captured in pipeline reports without adding automation.

Salesforce CPQ Behavior:During Quote → Opportunity sync, CPQ automatically maps fields only if:

The same API name exists on both objects

The field types match

The field-level security is correct

If these conditions are met, CPQ automatically handles field synchronization.

Therefore:

✔ C. Create ARR__c on Opportunity Line Item with matching field configurationThis leverages native CPQ field mapping, requires zero automation, and is the recommended Salesforce approach.

Why the other options are incorrect:Option

Why Incorrect

A. Price Rule to copy value

Price rules do not run on Opportunity Products; rules run only on Quote Line Editor.

B. Flow

Extra overhead and maintenance—unnecessary when CPQ already supports native field sync.

D. Cross-object formula

Opportunity Line Item cannot reference Quote Line fields (different object trees). Salesforce prevents this.

Thus, C is the only correct and efficient solution.

ARR__c exists on Quote Line (SBQQ__QuoteLine__c) and must appear on:

Opportunity Line Item for pipeline reporting

Salesforce CPQ automatically syncs Quote → Opportunity Line Item when:

The field exists on both objects

The Field API Name and Field Type match

This requires zero automation, no flow, no price rules.

Your CPQ org is performing poorly because:

30 Process Builders running on Quote & Opportunity

Heavy customization

Excessive automation layers

Salesforce best practice for Revenue Cloud:

Remove technical debt BEFORE designing the CPQ/Billing solution.

Thus:

✔ C — Baseline performance and fix technical debt firstReasons:

CPQ depends heavily on synchronous calculations

Custom automations drastically increase sync time

Process Builder is deprecated; should be migrated to Flow

Poor performance must be cleaned before CPQ design

Why others are wrong:Option

Why Incorrect

A — Upgrade CPQ

Upgrading cannot fix org-level technical debt.

B — Mark issues out-of-scope

Avoiding technical debt leads to project failure.

D — Extend customization

Adding code on top of a broken process worsens performance.

Thus C is correct.

Revenue Cloud implementations should NOT replicate outdated legacy CPQ logic.

Instead, Salesforce best practices require business transformation:

Understand current and future-state processes

Challenge legacy limitations

Use standard functionality wherever possible

Remove unnecessary customizations

✔ Correct Answer: COptions A, B, and D represent anti-patterns:

Option

Why Incorrect

A — Map legacy CPQ logic

Leads to replicating outdated processes rather than improvement.

B — Customize UI to mimic legacy

Increases technical debt and destroys scalability.

D — Keep legacy CPQ

Two CPQ systems create conflicts and are not recommended.

Thus C is correct.

Revenue Cloud Billing does not allow reparenting or reallocating payments across accounts.

To correct a misapplied payment:

Un-allocate the payment if already applied

Refund the payment

Create a new payment under the correct account (Account B)

Allocate it to the appropriate invoice

This follows Billing best practices for financial audit integrity.

The CPQ Quote Calculator runs in a designated Service Region. Performance increases significantly when:

The service region is geographically close to the Salesforce org.

Since the org is hosted in the EU:

✔ D — Europeis the correct service region, which reduces latency and speeds calculation.

Why the others are wrong:Option

Why Incorrect

A — No performance impact

100% incorrect; region affects latency heavily.

B — North America

Far from EU, adds latency.

C — Japan

Even slower.

E — Australia

Worst possible latency option.

Thus D is correct.

Salesforce CPQ Renewals use two fields:

Used for pipeline forecasting

Should be checked as soon as the contract activates

Indicates revenue is expected at renewal

Indicates the renewal quote has actually been generated

Should be checked close to the contract end date

1. Renewal Forecasted2. Renewal QuotedThis is standard Salesforce CPQ renewal process guidance.

Correct logic:Forecast early, quote late.

Thus:

✔ D — “Renewal Forecasted should be checked early; Renewal Quoted should be checked near Contract End Date.”

User Story“As a pricing manager, bulk discounts must include previously purchased quantities for pricing calculations on the quote to reward loyal customers.”

This refers to historical purchases influencing tiered or volume discounts.

In Salesforce CPQ, the only native feature that supports “include prior purchases when calculating discount tiers” is:

✔ Discount Schedules with Cross Orders enabledThis setting tells CPQ to:

Look at existing subscriptions, assets, orders, and previous quote lines

Aggregate prior quantities

Apply tiered volume discount based on the total owned quantity + new quantity

But for Cross Orders functionality to work…

✔ Historical Subscriptions / Assets must existSo you must migrate historical:

Contracts

Subscriptions

Assets (if asset-based ordering)

Without that data, CPQ cannot aggregate historical quantities.

Correct answer: B and E✔ B — Populate Contracts, Subscriptions, and Assets with historical dataCPQ needs these to calculate previously purchased quantities.

✔ E — Discount Schedules with Cross Orders checkedThis is the actual feature that uses prior purchased amounts to determine discount tiers.

Why the other options are not correct:Option

Why Incorrect

A — Custom Action

Unnecessary. CPQ has native Cross Orders behavior.

C — Summary Variable

Summary variables do not summarize external historical purchases.

D — Migrate Orders & Invoices

Not required for CPQ pricing. Only Subscriptions/Assets matter.

When Price Rules are insufficient for complex pricing logic, Salesforce CPQ documentation directs consultants to the Quote Calculator Plugin (QCP) as the next escalation point.

QCP enables custom JavaScript logic executed inside the CPQ Quote Calculator, allowing manipulation of:

List price

Net price

Quantity

Custom logic loops

Conditional calculations beyond standard rule capabilities

Flows or Apex should not manipulate pricing during calculation because they run outside the CPQ calculator, causing inconsistent pricing results.

Hence the correct next step is QCP.

Salesforce Billing uses Usage Summary to combine usage records per:

Billing period

Order Product

Rating characteristics

To simplify future usage uploads after amendments, Billing requires a stable reference to group or map usage lines.

✔ Matching ID is designed exactly for this purpose.It is:

Unique

Persistent across amendments

Used by external rating or mediation systems

Can be used as an External ID

Other fields cannot uniquely support usage upload reconciliation.

Thus, E is the correct answer.

In a Salesforce CPQ scoping session, the first documentation created is the Business Process Map, because:

It defines the customer’s selling, quoting, approval, pricing, contracting, renewal, and ordering processes.

It ensures all stakeholders are aligned on “how the business works now” before CPQ design begins.

Only after processes are mapped can product structure, order management, and quote document needs be designed.

Salesforce Revenue Cloud methodology always starts with:

Business Process Documentation → Requirements → Solution Design

Thus C is correct.

Error:

“Attempt to de-reference a null object” while amending migrated contracts/subscriptions.

This is the classic CPQ issue when legacy contract/subscription data is missing required fields.

Subscription Start / End Dates

Quantity

Price fields

Billing Frequency

Term

Amendment-related fields (AmendmentStartDate, etc.)

Subscription Product

Related Order Product

Related Asset (if asset-based)

During amendment, CPQ expects:Missing or incorrectly populated fields cause CPQ code to attempt to reference null values → null pointer exception.

Thus:

✔ C. Required fields are missing or incorrectly populated

Why the other options are incorrect:Option

Why Incorrect

A. Migrated contracts cannot be amended

False. Salesforce explicitly supports amendments on migrated data if fields are populated correctly.

B. Asset-based renewal required

Not required—CPQ supports quote-based and asset-based renewal models.

D. Missing lookup to source Quote Line

Not required for legacy subscriptions; CPQ amendments work without source quote lines.

Thus C is the only valid root cause.

For multi-level discount approvals in CPQ:

A – Identify backup approvers: Required because Salesforce Approval Processes must account for out-of-office or unavailable approvers.

D – Define discount thresholds for sales reps: Mandatory so the system knows when to trigger approvals.

E – Document approval levels: Ensures clear governance and reduces ambiguity.

Incorrect options:

B printing approval matrices is not a Salesforce implementation requirement.

C contradicts the purpose of approval controls.

Thus the correct answers are A, D, E.

When an escalation occurs on a Revenue Cloud implementation, the question is:

Who is ultimately responsible for the success of the project?

While many roles contribute, the Project Manager (PM) is the one accountable for:

Scope

Budget

Timeline

Risk & issue management

Cross-team coordination

Customer communication

Driving escalations and resolutions

Salesforce project methodology is clear:

The Project Manager owns overall project success.

Why the other roles are not the primary accountable party:Role

Why Not Responsible for Overall Success

Technical Architect

Owns technical integrity, not project success.

Solution Architect

Owns functional solution design, not delivery metrics.

Developer

Executes tasks, not responsible for project outcome.

Customer Success Manager

Supports customer relationship but not delivery execution.

Thus, the correct answer is:

✔ B — Project Manager

Salesforce Billing documentation states:

Posted Invoices cannot be edited, deleted, or reverted to draft.

Corrections must be performed through Cancel & Rebill.

Correct process:

Cancel & Rebill the posted invoice

The system automatically creates:

A Credit Memo for the incorrect invoice

A New Debit Invoice (unposted)

Admin corrects the Order / Order Product

Generate & post a new corrected invoice

Why the other options are incorrectOption

Issue

B. Change Posted → Draft

Impossible. Posted invoices cannot revert to draft.

C. Delete Invoice

Posted invoices cannot be deleted.

D. Credit the invoice manually

Does not follow the required cancel–re bill flow; also would not automatically issue corrected invoice.

Therefore A is the only Salesforce-compliant corrective action.

The CPQ Quote Calculator is hosted by Salesforce in specific service regions.

Performance is optimized when the service region matches the Salesforce org location.

Since the German operation is hosted in the EU Salesforce instance, the performance-optimized setting is:

✔ Europe regionThis keeps latency minimal and significantly improves quote calculation speed.

Scenario:

A customer has:

A posted invoice

A new order for the same account

Wants to add items without using invoice batches

The correct approach:

✔ D — Use Bill Now on the new order and consolidate invoicesSteps:

Run Bill Now on the new order → generates a new invoice immediately.

Enable Invoice Consolidation (Billing settings / Account level).

Combine invoice lines from the new invoice into the already posted invoice.

Salesforce Billing supports invoice consolidation even after one invoice is posted.

Why the other options are wrongOption

Why Incorrect

A — Credit then Bill

Unnecessary; original invoice is correct and should remain posted.

B — Bill Now + reparent invoice lines

Reparenting posted invoice lines is NOT supported.

C — Cancel and Rebill

Only used to correct errors, not to add new order items.

Thus D is the correct solution.

Invoice Scheduler Settings:

Target Date = Jan 15

Bill Usage Charges = FALSE

This means:

The scheduler will generate invoice lines for Order Products only, not usage summaries.Thus the correct rule is:

✔ A — Order Products with Next Billing Date equal to or earlier than January 15

Why the other options are wrong:Option

Why Incorrect

B — Usage Summaries

Ignored because Bill Usage Charges = False.

C — Next Billing Date equal to or after

Billing only generates lines for dates <= Target Date.

D — Next Charge Date

Not used by Invoice Scheduler.

Thus A is correct.

Before a scoping session, the consultant should understand:

A – Sample proposals → reveals quoting format, pricing models, product structure.

B – Product brochures → clarifies offerings, catalog categories, bundles.

D – Approval matrix → shows governance controls required in CPQ.

Incorrect:

C Salesforce release notes are irrelevant to understanding customer requirements.

E Financial statements do not contribute to CPQ/Billing scoping.

Correct answers: A, B, D.

For a large Enterprise Revenue Cloud (Salesforce CPQ + Billing) implementation, the key themes in all Salesforce delivery guidance and project best practices are:

Governance and change control

Design-first, then build

Raising scope-impacting changes through the Project Manager

Architect accountability for solution integrity, PM accountability for scope/timeline/budget

Let’s walk through why C is correct and why the other options conflict with typical Salesforce CPQ/Billing implementation best practices.

1. Context of the ScenarioYou are in the Build phase and:

You already have a design with:

Multiple Lookup Price Rules implementing complex pricing.

New information emerges:

Additional pricing logic

External data stores that must be incorporated

Need to modify existing lookup rules

Need to create additional rules

Need API development (integration work)

This is not a cosmetic tweak; it is:

Scope-impacting (new integration/API work, new logic)

Design-impacting (pricing architecture changes)

Potentially timeline and budget impacting

Therefore, this triggers formal change control.

2. Why Option C is CorrectC. Communicate these changes to the project manager who will evaluate the impact to scope, timeline and budget then determine the next course of action

This aligns with standard Salesforce implementation and project governance principles:

Any change that affects scope, complexity, or integration must be raised to the Project Manager (PM)

Project Manager is responsible for:

Scope management

Timeline & milestones

Budget & resourcing

Managing change requests and stakeholder approvals

The PM will:

Evaluate impact with:

Solution Architect (for technical/design impact)

Tech leads / Dev leads (for effort estimation)

Decide:

Whether a Change Request (CR) is needed

How to re-prioritize sprints, adjust backlog

Whether additional budget / time is required

How to communicate to customer stakeholders

This preserves:

Design integrity (Architect still evaluated the solution)

Project discipline (PM governs scope/timeline/budget)

Traceability and documentation (updated design docs, backlog, CRs)

This is exactly how a large enterprise Revenue Cloud (CPQ + Billing) program is expected to run.

3. Why the Other Options Are Not AppropriateA. “Adjust as long as we're in build phase”A. Communication to the customer ongoing adjustment can be made as long as we're in the build phase.

Problems:

Implies uncontrolled scope creep:

“As long as we’re in build, we can just keep adjusting.”

No mention of:

Impact to scope, timeline, budget

Formal change control

Involvement of PM or Architect

In a complex CPQ/Billing implementation, this would:

Break governance

Risk missed deadlines and budget overruns

Create misaligned expectations with the customer

So A contradicts standard methodology and enterprise delivery practices.

B. “Implement then review with the Solution Architect”B. Implement the lookup price rules immediately then review with the solution Architect.

Problems:

Sequence is wrong:

You never build first and ask the Architect later on large-scale pricing and integration changes.

This can cause:

Misalignment with overall pricing architecture

Conflicts with other CPQ/Billing components (e.g., Amendments, Renewals, Billing logic)

Rework if the Architect has a different approach

Still no mention of PM or scope/timeline/budget impact.

This violates both design governance and project governance.

D. “Architect then immediate implementation (no PM)”D. Consult with the solution Architect first who will expedite the updates to the design documents, then implement the changes immediately.

This is closer, but still incomplete:

Good:

You involve the Solution Architect.

You talk about updating design documents.

But:

No involvement of the Project Manager.

No consideration of:

Impact to scope

Impact to timeline

Impact to budget

For “large Enterprise Revenue Cloud” projects, Architect ≠ PM:

Architect owns technical solution integrity

PM owns project plan, change control, stakeholder approvals

So D ignores formal change management which is critical at enterprise scale.

E. “If low effort, just do it; else next sprint”E. Gather more details, if it requires a low level of effort then implement immediately before starting the next sprint. Otherwise complete on the subsequent sprint.

Problems:

Consultant is unilaterally deciding based on “low effort”:

No PM.

No formal scope/time/budget impact evaluation.

This might be okay for minor cosmetic or non-functional changes in a small project, but:

Here we have:

Complex pricing

Multiple lookup price rules

External data store integrations

API development

This is never “just low effort”.

For a large enterprise Revenue Cloud implementation:

This bypasses governance, change control, and approvals.

So E promotes ad hoc scope changes, which is against standard practice.

4. How This Ties Back to Salesforce CPQ & Billing Best PracticesIn Salesforce CPQ and Billing implementations, especially when dealing with complex pricing logic and external integrations:

Complex Pricing (Lookup Price Rules):

Changes can affect:

Quote calculation performance

Sequential dependencies with Price Rules, Discount Schedules, QCP, Billing logic

May cause downstream issues in:

Orders, Invoices, Revenue Schedules, Amendments, Renewals

External Data Stores & API Development:

Introduces:

New integration patterns

Error handling, retries, timeouts

Security and governance requirements

Impacts:

Technical design

Test strategy (SIT, UAT, performance testing)

Possibly non-functional requirements

Because of that, Salesforce project documentation and implementation guidance emphasize:

Raising such changes via Project Manager

Having the Solution Architect assess and update:

Solution design

Integration architecture

Managing it formally as a change request if it affects:

Scope

Timeline

Budget

This is exactly what Option C describes at the right level of responsibility.