C_S4EWM_2601 試験問題を無料オンラインアクセス

<strong>CHALLENGE 1 &#x2014; Dealer Return Inspection Routing During Hypercare Processing</strong> Two dealer return receipts contain similar mixed pallets. One follows the expected inspection route automatically, while the other reaches the same result only after the user selects an alternate path.
What is the most defensible diagnosis?
Response:

• A.The picking queue for replacement orders is overloaded and is changing the inbound inspection path.
• B.The dealer return receipt process is invalid because mixed pallets should not generate warehouse tasks.
• C.The on-premise warehouse should handle all returns because hybrid landscapes cannot support inspection routing.
• D.The second-order link between return handling data and warehouse process determination has not been consistently proven.

A laboratory glassware warehouse is testing inspection-relevant receiving in SAP S/4HANA Extended Warehouse Management through a web-based private-edition environment. Inbound deliveries are distributed correctly, goods receipt is posted, and the monitor shows the receipts as ready for warehouse processing. For receipts with one inspection-priority indicator, however, the expected next warehouse activity is not proposed, while receipts with other indicators continue through the inbound flow without issue.
During testing, a user can move the affected receipts forward by assigning them temporarily to a standard receiving profile, but the operations team rejects that workaround because the same supplier shipments arrive multiple times each day. The consultant must preserve the differentiated inbound design and correct the recurring upstream dependency with the smallest targeted change.
Which action should the consultant perform first?
Response:

• A.elay goods receipt posting for the affected inspection-priority receipts until the warehouse team can review the full receiving model.
• B.ncrease bin availability in the receiving destination area so the affected receipts have more options during warehouse task proposal.
• C.erify whether the inspection-priority document context is correctly linked to the warehouse process behavior required for that inbound flow.
• D.oute the affected receipts through a generic inbound profile so warehouse activities can be proposed without inspection-priority differentiation.

A seasonal apparel warehouse is running SAP S/4HANA Extended Warehouse Management in a web-based private-edition environment with mobile execution. During afternoon replenishment, threshold-based replenishment documents are created and supervisors can see open warehouse orders in the monitor. Operators in the mezzanine picking area can log on to their devices and access replenishment transactions, but they receive a message that no executable work is available.
Operators in ground-floor picking areas receive replenishment work normally. Support confirms there is no RF connectivity problem and no new role change was transported. The warehouse manager wants the smallest corrective action because the replenishment design is already stable for the rest of the site. The consultant must correct the assignment dependency rather than changing replenishment volume or timing.
What should the consultant check first?
Response:

• A.hether replenishment thresholds for the mezzanine bins should be lowered so more work becomes visible on mobile devices.
• B.hether the mezzanine resources are correctly assigned to the queue and activity area used for replenishment work selection.
• C.hether the mobile menu profile should be simplified so users reach the replenishment screen more quickly after logon.
• D.hether the replenishment wave timing should be split so mezzanine work is released in a separate processing cycle.

A home appliances distributor is validating a newly introduced warehouse exception path in SAP S/4HANA Extended Warehouse Management through a web-based quality environment. The relevant customizing was imported successfully, and existing putaway and picking flows remain stable. During testing, users can reach the affected process step, but the expected exception option does not appear for one warehouse activity type, while the same exception setup is visible in a different activity context.
The project manager wants the smallest corrective action because the transport window is closed and a reimport would require new approvals. The consultant must identify the missing dependency in the current target environment rather than restart the transport cycle.
Which action should the consultant perform first?
Response:

• A.reate a separate warehouse activity type for testing so the exception can be validated outside the existing flow.
• B.eopen the change window and reimport the full transport so all exception settings are refreshed together.
• C.everse the latest customizing import and return the warehouse to the earlier stable behavior before further analysis.
• D.erify whether the exception configuration is correctly assigned to the specific warehouse activity context where it is missing.

<strong>CHALLENGE 4 &#x2014; Reusable Template Control for Regional Rollout Readiness</strong> A local supervisor requests a site-specific configuration change to stabilize the first warehouse before rollout. The change would solve the current observation but has not been assessed for reuse at the other regional warehouses.
What should the consultant do first?
Response:

• A.Classify the change as reusable, approved local, or deferred based on template impact before applying it broadly.
• B.Reject the change automatically because clean-core discipline does not allow warehouse-specific configuration.
• C.Apply the change to the template immediately because first-site stabilization proves business value.
• D.Copy the change into the on-premise site first so the hybrid landscape remains consistent.