SF-Data-Arch Data Governance Practice Question
A global Salesforce org maintains an Account record that is simultaneously updated by an inbound ERP integration, a nightly Data Loader batch, and a sales rep via the Lightning UI. During a data quality audit, the governance board finds that conflicting values for the 'Annual Revenue' field have overwritten each other, and no one can determine which source was authoritative at any point in time. The board wants to ensure that future conflicts are detected, attributed to a source system, and resolved according to a documented priority order before the record is committed. Which governance mechanism should the Data Architect recommend to satisfy this requirement?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap here is assuming that field history tracking or a manual approval queue constitutes conflict resolution, when neither encodes a source priority order nor prevents conflicting overwrites from committing.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Implement a Master Data Management (MDM) system of record with survivorship rules that encode the source priority order and write the golden record back to Salesforce.
The requirement is a governed, deterministic conflict-resolution process that records which source system was authoritative. An MDM system of record with survivorship rules encodes the source priority order as governed metadata, applies it automatically when sources disagree, and preserves lineage for audit. Field history, manual review queues, and permission-based write exclusion either act too late, rely on human latency, or block legitimate writes without resolving the underlying conflict.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Create a validation rule that blocks updates to Annual Revenue unless the running user has the 'Data Governance' permission set, and grant that permission set only to the ERP integration user.
Why it's wrong here
Restricting the field to a single integration user prevents the sales rep and the nightly Data Loader batch from updating the field at all, which breaks legitimate business processes rather than resolving conflicts. It also does not encode a priority order among multiple authoritative sources, and it provides no attribution or lineage showing which source last set the value. The governance board's requirement is conflict resolution, not write exclusion.
- ✓
Implement a Master Data Management (MDM) system of record with survivorship rules that encode the source priority order and write the golden record back to Salesforce.
Why this is correct
An MDM hub with explicit survivorship rules is the only option that both stores the precedence order as governed metadata and applies it deterministically whenever sources disagree. It can stamp the winning source and retain lineage, so the audit can show which system was authoritative at commit time. This directly satisfies detection, attribution, and documented resolution before the record is committed.
- ✗
Implement a Data Steward review queue using a custom object and a scheduled Flow that asks the data steward to manually approve each conflicting value.
Why it's wrong here
A manual review queue adds human latency to every conflict and still does not attach a source-system identity to the competing values, so the board cannot attribute the overwrite after the fact. The requirement is for automatic detection and documented precedence, not human adjudication of each field. This approach also does not scale to high-volume nightly batches and would leave the audit trail dependent on steward diligence.
- ✗
Enable Field History Tracking on Annual Revenue and create a report that shows all changes, then distribute the report to the governance board weekly.
Why it's wrong here
Field History Tracking records that a change occurred and who made it, but it does not identify the originating integration as a governed source system, nor does it prevent or resolve conflicting writes. It is a retrospective audit artifact, not a conflict-resolution mechanism. Relying on a weekly report also means conflicts have already overwritten each other before anyone can act on them.
Visual reference
About these practice questions
One of 222 original SF-Data-Arch practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official Salesforce exam blueprint
This SF-Data-Arch practice question is part of Courseiva's free Salesforce certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the SF-Data-Arch exam.