SAP Certified - SAP S/4HANA Cloud Private Edition, Sourcing and Procurement 認定 C_TS452_2601 試験問題:

1. A specialty-textiles company is validating supplier-quote award processing in SAP S/4HANA Cloud Private Edition after replacing an email-driven sourcing cycle with standard RFQ handling. Buyers can create RFQs, suppliers can submit quotations, and the comparison view loads correctly for most fabric groups. However, when the sourcing team tries to convert the awarded quotation for one seasonal fabric group into the expected follow-on purchasing document, the system does not carry the award result forward even though the selected quotation is visible as accepted.
A different fabric group in the same purchasing organization completes the award-to-procurement step correctly. The sourcing manager wants the issue fixed before the team retires its spreadsheet-based award tracker. Buyers must not create off-process purchase orders, and the correction must stay within standard clean-core-aligned sourcing design.
What should the consultant check first?

A) Broaden buyer authorization so the awarded quotation can bypass the missing follow-on determination step.
B) Verify whether the affected fabric group is correctly included in the award-to-follow-on document determination and sourcing-result binding used after quotation acceptance.
C) Rebuild supplier invitation settings because accepted quotations should always become purchasable after comparison.
D) Ask buyers to create manual purchase orders from the accepted quotation until the sourcing rollout is complete.

2. <strong>CHALLENGE 4 &#x2014; Receipt and Invoice Consistency for Cutover Approval</strong> The finance team proposes allowing local exception handling during cutover rehearsal so invoices can be settled faster, even if the route differs by depot. The transition office wants an outcome that remains supportable in the next deployment wave. Which action is best aligned with the scenario?

A) Retain the stricter receipt-to-invoice sequence and validate whether settlement traceability remains intact during cutover conditions
B) Accept local exception handling because cutover should prioritize settlement speed over sequence integrity
C) Validate only confirmation completion and assume invoice consistency will normalize later
D) Suspend invoice validation for unresolved cases and rely on post-go-live cleanup

3. <strong>CHALLENGE 1 &#x2014; Supplier Allocation Readiness for Shared Material Demand</strong> During cutover rehearsal, two plants generate recurring demand for the same packaging material family. Both plants have approved suppliers available, but only one plant follows the expected supplier distribution pattern once purchase documents are created. The sourcing lead wants to preserve a shared support model after go-live rather than rely on local buyer judgment.
What is the best first validation action?

A) Compare source-maintenance setup and purchasing conditions for the material across both plants before changing execution behavior
B) Let the slower plant choose suppliers manually until the first live week is complete
C) Reduce approval involvement for packaging purchases so supplier selection can move faster
D) Assign one preferred supplier to both plants temporarily so cutover rehearsal can finish on time

4. A chemical distributor is validating split valuation and procurement posting behavior in SAP S/4HANA Cloud Private Edition after moving from a template that previously used a simplified stock model. Purchase orders for the affected raw materials can be created, and goods receipts are recorded without interruption. However, when the warehouse team posts receipts for one valuation scenario, the material documents are created but follow-on financial postings fail validation in the test monitor for only the affected valuation path. Standard goods receipts for other materials in the same plant complete successfully.
The implementation lead wants the root cause corrected before the next rollout wave. The team must keep the standard configuration model, avoid temporary manual finance postings, and stay aligned with clean core governance because additional plants will inherit the same template.
What is the best next step to address the upstream issue?

A) Suppress the finance validation checks temporarily so the logistics team can complete receipt testing on schedule.
B) Ask the warehouse team to receive the material under a working valuation path and reclassify it later after go-live.
C) Review whether the valuation-related customizing and account determination settings are correctly aligned for the affected material usage and organizational scope.
D) Recreate the purchase orders with a different purchasing group because follow-on posting failures often originate in buyer settings.

5. A sourcing and procurement workstream is preparing its final test cycle in SAP S/4HANA Cloud Private Edition before business sign-off. The team has configured standard requisitioning, purchasing, goods receipt, and invoice validation flows. Automated test scripts were updated after the latest transport import. In manual testing, buyers can still complete the end-to-end process successfully in the target environment. However, the automation run now fails at the purchase-order creation step for only one test package, even though the related materials, suppliers, and plants are active and the same business users can execute the process manually in SAP Fiori.
The project manager wants the issue corrected without changing the approved business design, because the transport window is limited and clean core rules prohibit ad hoc custom test-only logic.
What should the consultant do first?

A) Rebuild the purchasing configuration because any automated test failure during PO creation usually indicates a document-control defect.
B) Add a custom fallback step that injects supplier and plant values during the failed automation sequence.
C) Ask the business users to complete the failed package manually and mark the automated run as non-critical for sign-off.
D) Review whether the automated test data bindings and execution variant for that package still align with the transported target configuration.

質問と回答：