All PEGACPSA23V1 Test Inside Pegasystems Questions

When configuring the "Search duplicate cases" step in a Pega application, especially for IT ticketing systems, the primary aim is to identify multiple tickets raised for the same underlying issue. The most straightforward and effective criterion for identifying duplicates in this context is the issue type, such as "the office Wi-Fi is down."

• B. Issue type is same: This option targets the core reason behind the creation of a ticket. Since multiple individuals can report the same issue from various departments or locations, filtering by the issue type ensures that all reports concerning a single problem (e.g., Wi-Fi outage) are identified as duplicates. This approach helps in consolidating the efforts to address and resolve the issue efficiently, avoiding redundant work.

Filtering by the name of the submitter, department, or office location (Options A, C, and D) might miss duplicates reported by different users or from different areas, making "Issue type is same" the most logical and effective criterion for identifying duplicates in IT ticketing scenarios.

Similar to the previous validation question, using a single Validate rule that encompasses both conditions—minimum monthly income of GBP 2000 and a maximum credit card debt of GBP 20000—is the most straightforward and efficient approach. This ensures that all financial criteria are assessed together, maintaining consistency and simplicity in the validation process, and preventing the application from moving forward if either financial criterion is not met.

To locate the "Purchase Insurance" field used in testing the calculation of the "TotalCost" field without a configured UI:

B. User Pages. In the Clipboard, User Pages typically hold data related to the current user session and case processing, including fields like "Purchase Insurance" which are manipulated during a case session and influence other data calculations in the case, such as "TotalCost".

For time-off requests requiring multiple levels of approval based on the duration of the request, combining a cascading approval process with an authority matrix and custom approvals configured in the reporting structure is effective. The authority matrix can define different approval rules based on the length of the time-off requested, while custom approvals allow for the inclusion of additional approvers, such as HR, when the request exceeds a specific threshold (e.g., three weeks). This ensures that all necessary approvals are obtained in a structured and hierarchical manner.