I think A makes more sense here because using a record-triggered flow lets you actively find and assign the latest contract even after creation. It feels safer in case the asset-contract relationship changes later. Not 100 percent sure, though, since context mapping is common too. Agree?
I don’t think C works if the assets are expired. For CPQ, you have to update the End Dates first or the expired assets won’t show up for renewal at all. This is a common trip-up-C is tempting, but only applies to current (not expired) assets. So it’s definitely A here, unless I missed something specific from recent updates.
Option C would make sense if the assets weren't already expired. Is the question asking for the best way even for assets that are past their end date, or just ones that are still active? If expired assets aren't eligible for override renewal term without an End Date update, that changes things.
I was thinking B since overriding the flow could give reps more control and let them pick between quote or order. Maybe config alone isn't enough if the feature's missing out of the box? Not 100% sure, open to other takes.
I don’t think it’s A this time, I’m going with B. If the Opportunity is Closed Won it should trigger asset updates automatically, right? That sounds like streamlined automation to me, but maybe I’m missing something.
Makes sense to go with C for this. The question wants the price impacting attributes to work only for one product, not for all products in the class. If you edited at the attribute or class level (A or B), every product using that class would get the change, which might mess up other pricing scenarios. Unless there’s some custom logic overriding this, C matches what the platform supports. Always worth checking if attribute inheritance is customized though!
I don’t think it’s C, since Evergreen Monthly is for continuous subscriptions without a set end date. The question asks about installments over 12 months, so A fits better here but happy to hear other thoughts if I’m missing something.
Yeah, B makes sense here. Product Attributes lets you keep a single product and add skills or roles as attributes during quoting, which controls SKU sprawl. Not 100% sure but pretty confident given how CPQ handles config.
Is anyone really using Product Classification (C) for this kind of dynamic config? From what I've seen, Attributes in B solve for SKU explosion way better, but maybe there's a nuance I'm missing around Classification here?
Totally agree with B here. Product Attributes are meant for exactly this scenario, so you don't need a new SKU for every skill or role, just define them as selectable options. Pretty sure that's the best CPQ approach but open to other views.