Study with C_THR81_2605 Actual Test Questions

In a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central tenant, a consultant is validating a manager-led organizational move process before a regional deployment. In the web-based UI, managers can select company and business unit, but for one newly activated operating structure the pay group list appears incomplete and omits the pay group that should be valid for the intended organizational combination. Other structures show the correct filtered pay group options.
HR leadership confirms the missing pay group was included during the latest corporate data maintenance cycle and must remain available only for approved combinations. The customer does not want to broaden pay-group availability across unrelated structures or use temporary placeholder values during the move process. The consultant must correct the issue without changing the business process design.
What is the best next step?
Response:

• A. Broaden pay-group visibility for all nearby structures so managers can always find the missing value during the move process.
• B. Ask managers to choose a temporary pay group and let HR operations correct the final value after the transaction is completed.
• C. Review the organizational associations for company, business unit, and pay group in the new structure, then correct the relationship controlling filtered pay-group availability.
• D. Create duplicate pay-group records for the new structure so the intended value appears separately in the filtered list.

In a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central Core and Position Management project, a consultant is testing a workflow for manager-submitted temporary reporting changes. In the web-based environment, requests from all regions save and enter workflow correctly, but for one newly added business population the request bypasses the escalation review step whenever the transaction contains both a temporary end date and a sensitive reporting relationship.
Similar requests for other populations include the escalation review as designed. The customer wants to preserve the shared workflow framework and avoid creating separate population-specific workflows because post-go-live maintenance must stay low. The issue appeared after the business population was added during the latest configuration cycle.
What is the best corrective action?
Response:

• A. Review the routing rule or condition precedence for the newly added business population, then correct the logic for requests combining temporary end date and sensitive reporting relationship.
• B. Add the escalation reviewer directly to the final approval step so all affected requests still receive additional oversight.
• C. Create a separate workflow for the new business population so the escalation review step is always included for those requests.
• D. Ask managers in that population to submit sensitive temporary reporting changes through HR administrators until a broader redesign is available.

<strong>CHALLENGE 3 &#x2014; Regional Manager Access for Claims Boundaries</strong> The project team has two access options: maintain strict regional boundaries and leave several valid manager test cases blocked, or grant broad regional visibility and complete all test cases quickly. Which option best supports the SIT objective?
Response:

• A. Maintain strict boundaries without adjustment because blocked access always confirms secure design.
• B. Grant broad visibility for all regional managers because complete test execution is more important than access evidence.
• C. Adjust roles and target populations to support assigned manager responsibilities, then retest blocked and out-of-scope records.
• D. Move access validation to a later phase and let HR operations complete all manager-facing test cases.

A consultant is supporting a scheduled import of future-dated position attribute corrections in a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central and Position Management tenant before a monthly planning review. The file runs successfully for most rows, but a subset completes with warnings and leaves the affected positions unchanged. Those positions already have approved future-dated workflow requests for different attribute changes in the same effective period.
The customer wants the current administrative correction preserved without deleting the approved requests, because the future requests were already validated by the planning team. The monthly load must remain reusable and should not create a permanent manual exception process for positions with pending future changes.
What is the best next step?
Response:

• A. Delete the approved future workflow requests for the affected positions, then rerun the warning rows so the administrative correction can load without conflict.
• B. Adjust the import handling for positions with overlapping future-dated workflow changes so the administrative correction fits the approved lifecycle timeline without replacing later records.
• C. Retry the warning rows with broader administrative permissions so the import can override the existing future-dated workflow state during this cycle.
• D. Exclude the affected positions from future imports and require HR administrators to maintain those records directly in the web-based UI each month.

In a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central tenant, a consultant is validating manager self-service before a customer demo. Managers can open employee profiles and submit workflow requests for job information changes, but they cannot see the position data block that was added for the pilot. The block is visible for HR administrators in the same web-based environment.
A quick review shows that the position-related fields are configured and already used in the tenant. The customer asks for a fix that preserves current data access restrictions because position details include planning-sensitive information. The consultant has limited time and must avoid broadening access beyond what managers need for their own reporting lines.
What is the best action to restore the missing manager view while keeping governance intact?
Response:

• A. Reimport the position data so the system refreshes the employee profile and rebuilds the missing block.
• B. Disable the position block for HR administrators and rebuild it with a new configuration that is shared across all roles.
• C. Review role-based permission target population and position-related permissions for the manager role, then adjust only the manager scope required for supported reporting lines.
• D. Grant managers the same role permissions used by HR administrators for position data so the block becomes visible immediately.