SAP C_THR81_2605 actual dump : SAP Certified - SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central Core and Position Management (C_THR81_2605)

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. 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.
• B. Grant managers the same role permissions used by HR administrators for position data so the block becomes visible immediately.
• C. Disable the position block for HR administrators and rebuild it with a new configuration that is shared across all roles.
• D. Reimport the position data so the system refreshes the employee profile and rebuilds the missing block.

<strong>CHALLENGE 4 &#x2014; Employee Data Workflow for Compliance Review</strong> The implementation partner needs readiness evidence for whether employee data workflow can support the regulated workforce review. Some affected insurance changes remain with corporate HR, while similar branch changes route correctly.
Which evidence best supports a controlled remediation recommendation?
Response:

• A. Representative employee data change tests show that routing follows compliance responsibility when employee and position context align.
• B. Compliance reviewers receive notification emails for some successful branch employee changes.
• C. Corporate HR can approve every pending request before the remediation summary is submitted.
• D. The team can manually list which insurance requests remain pending with corporate HR.

<strong>CHALLENGE 2 &#x2014; Warehouse Position Context for Shift Lead Assignments</strong> Warehouse shift-lead positions are available during employee assignment, but some assigned employees show a district context that does not match the warehouse staffing model. Store associate assignments behave as expected.
Which validation action best distinguishes position-context behavior from a general employee import concern?
Response:

• A. Ask HR operations to complete all warehouse assignments centrally until final manager testing is complete.
• B. Convert the affected warehouse positions into store positions so they follow the working store associate pattern.
• C. Remove district context from warehouse positions so that assignment can be completed without district validation.
• D. Test representative warehouse position assignments and manager-facing review results against the intended warehouse location and district context.

A consultant is testing a workflow for manager-submitted temporary supervisory coverage changes in SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central Core and Position Management. In the public cloud web-based environment, requests for all tested populations save and enter workflow correctly. However, for one newly added support population, requests that include both a temporary end date and a position-linked approval impact bypass the intended control review and go straight to the final approval stage.
Existing populations with the same combination still pass through control review. The customer wants to keep the shared workflow model because separate population-specific workflows would increase post-go-live maintenance. The consultant must correct the routing behavior without redesigning the wider approval process.
What is the best corrective action?
Response:

• A. Create a separate workflow for the new support population so the control review is always included for those requests.
• B. Ask managers in the new support population to stop using temporary supervisory coverage requests until the workflow model is revised later.
• C. Review the routing condition or rule precedence for the new population, then correct the logic for requests combining temporary end date with position-linked approval impact.
• D. Add the control reviewers directly to the final approval stage so affected requests still receive some oversight before completion.

In a public cloud SAP SuccessFactors Employee Central Core and Position Management project, a consultant is validating a workflow for position-linked temporary transfers. In the web-based environment, requests created for one business area start correctly but route to a fallback reviewer instead of the intended delegated approver when the primary approver is unavailable.
The same delegation behavior works for other business areas. The customer confirms that delegated approvers were maintained centrally and wants the routing fixed without duplicating workflows by business area, because long-term maintenance must stay simple. The issue began after the affected business area was added to the transfer design during the latest configuration cycle.
What should the consultant investigate first?
Response:

• A. Instruct users in the affected business area to wait until the primary approver returns rather than using delegated routing.
• B. Add the delegated approver to the fallback reviewer group so routed requests still reach someone who can approve them.
• C. Create a separate workflow for the affected business area so the delegated approver can be assigned directly without shared logic.
• D. Review the rule or approver-determination condition for the newly added business area, then correct the logic that should resolve the delegated approver instead of the fallback reviewer.