Supporting Artifacts Quick-Ref
Tier 2 artifacts round out the CTA presentation. Each covers a specific scoring domain. Judges probe these less deeply than the Big 3, but a missing or weak supporting artifact can still cost you the section.
1. Integration Architecture Diagram
Purpose: Detailed view of all integration interfaces, including data flows, protocols, patterns, and error handling. This zooms into the arrows from your System Landscape.
What to Include
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Source + target systems | For each integration point |
| Integration pattern | Request-Reply, Fire-and-Forget, Batch, Event-Driven, Pub-Sub |
| Protocol | REST, SOAP, Platform Events, CDC, Streaming API, Bulk API |
| Middleware | MuleSoft, cloud services, custom middleware layer |
| Data direction | Unidirectional or bidirectional arrows |
| Sync vs Async | For each interface |
| Frequency | Real-time, near-real-time, scheduled (cron), event-triggered |
| Error handling | Dead letter queues, retry logic, alerting, circuit breakers |
| Data transformation | Where and how data is mapped between systems |
| Volumes | Records/messages per interface per day |
Interface Reference Table Pattern
The numbering technique
If your diagram gets too busy, number each integration (I-01, I-02…) on the diagram and create a companion table in Google Sheets with full details. Present both: diagram for visual story, table for technical depth. Judges appreciate this level of organization.
| Interface | Source | Target | Pattern | Protocol | Sync/Async | Frequency | Volume | Error Handling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I-01 | ERP | Salesforce | Batch | REST Bulk API | Async | Nightly | 50K records | Retry 3x, DLQ, alert |
| I-02 | Salesforce | DW | Event-Driven | CDC | Async | Real-time | 10K/day | Platform Event replay |
| I-03 | Portal | Salesforce | Request-Reply | REST API | Sync | Real-time | 500 req/min | Circuit breaker, 429 retry |
Integration Pattern Decision Matrix
| Need | Pattern | Protocol Options |
|---|---|---|
| Instant response required | Request-Reply | REST, SOAP |
| No response needed | Fire-and-Forget | Platform Events, Outbound Message |
| Large data volumes | Batch | Bulk API, ETL, Data Loader |
| React to record changes | Event-Driven | CDC, Platform Events |
| Multiple consumers | Pub-Sub | Platform Events, Streaming API |
| Complex orchestration | Process Orchestration | MuleSoft, AWS Step Functions |
Mandatory Checklist (verify before presenting)
| Check | Pass? |
|---|---|
| MuleSoft/ESB shown as explicit layer between Salesforce and every external system? | |
| Every arrow labeled with sync/async/batch timing? | |
| Every arrow labeled with protocol (REST, SOAP, Platform Events, CDC, Bulk API)? | |
| Error handling shown for each interface (retry, DLQ, alerting)? | |
| Volumes per interface documented? | |
| Legend included? |
Common Mistakes
Integration gotchas
- No middleware layer: direct arrows from Salesforce to external systems without MuleSoft/ESB in between. Every Salesforce-to-external connection must route through the integration layer
- Unlabeled arrows: every arrow needs three labels: direction, timing (sync/async/batch), and protocol (REST/SOAP/Events). Use labels like “Sync REST”, “Async Platform Event”, “Batch ETL (nightly)”
- Happy path only: judges always ask “what happens when this fails at 2 AM?”
- No error handling: every interface needs retry logic, DLQ, and alerting
- No volumes: “how many records?” is a guaranteed question
- Saying “ETL” without specifics: name the tool, the steps, the schedule
- Ignoring API limits: Salesforce has daily API call limits; how does your design stay within them?
- Sync where async is appropriate: blocking calls for non-urgent data flows
Judge Q&A Targets
| Question | Prep |
|---|---|
| ”What happens when integration X fails?” | Retry count, DLQ, monitoring, manual recovery |
| ”Why sync instead of async here?” | Latency requirement from scenario |
| ”What are the API limits?“ | 100K calls/day (Enterprise), show you calculated |
| ”How do you handle data conflicts?” | Last-write-wins, master system designation, conflict queue |
Domains scored: Integration (D5), System Architecture (D1)
2. Identity & SSO Flow Diagram
Purpose: The authentication and authorization flow showing login sequences, identity federation, and SSO across systems. Show the actual step-by-step flow, not just “we use SAML.”
What to Include
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Identity Provider (IdP) | Corporate AD, Okta, Azure AD, Salesforce as IdP, social login |
| Service Providers (SP) | Salesforce orgs, portals, external systems |
| Protocol | SAML 2.0, OAuth 2.0, OpenID Connect |
| Flow type | SP-initiated vs IdP-initiated |
| User provisioning | JIT, manual, automated via integration |
| MFA | Multi-factor approach per user type |
| Portal identity | How external users authenticate (separate IdP? self-registration?) |
| Token management | Access tokens, refresh tokens, session policies |
SSO Flow Template (SAML SP-Initiated)
Protocol Decision Quick-Ref
| Scenario | Protocol | Flow |
|---|---|---|
| Internal users, corporate IdP | SAML 2.0 | SP-initiated |
| External portal users, social login | OpenID Connect | SP-initiated |
| System-to-system (no user) | OAuth 2.0 JWT Bearer | Client Credentials |
| Mobile app authentication | OAuth 2.0 | Web Server or Device Flow |
| Salesforce org-to-org | Named Credentials + OAuth | JWT Bearer |
| Marketing Cloud connect | OAuth 2.0 | Web Server |
Internal vs External Identity
| Aspect | Internal Users | External (Portal) Users |
|---|---|---|
| IdP | Corporate (Okta, Azure AD) | Social, self-registration, or customer IdP |
| Protocol | SAML 2.0 typically | OpenID Connect or SAML |
| Provisioning | JIT or directory sync | Self-registration + approval |
| MFA | Corporate MFA policy | SMS/email verification |
| Session timeout | 2-12 hours (corporate policy) | Shorter (30 min - 2 hours) |
| License | Full Salesforce licenses | Community/Experience Cloud licenses |
Common Mistakes
Identity flow gotchas
- Saying “we use SSO” without showing the flow: judges expect the step-by-step sequence
- Not differentiating internal vs external: they have completely different flows
- Forgetting logout: session timeout, single logout (SLO), token revocation
- No MFA: multi-factor authentication is expected for all production access
- Confusing SAML roles: know which system is the IdP and which is the SP clearly
- Missing provisioning: how do user accounts get created? JIT? Manual? Automated sync?
Domains scored: Security (D2), System Architecture (D1)
3. Data Migration Strategy
Purpose: The plan for moving data from legacy systems to Salesforce, covering sequencing, tooling, validation, and rollback.
What to Include
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Source systems | Where data comes from |
| Approach | Big-bang vs phased/incremental |
| ETL tooling | Data Loader, Informatica, Jitterbit, MuleSoft |
| Object load order | Parent objects first, junction objects last |
| Data cleansing | Dedup, validation, enrichment steps |
| External ID strategy | How records are matched between old and new systems |
| Volume estimates | Record counts per object |
| Validation | How you verify integrity post-migration |
| Rollback plan | What happens if migration fails midway |
| Cutover plan | When to switch, parallel run period |
Load Sequence Rule
The parent-first rule
Always load parent objects before children. Load junction objects after both related objects exist. Load attachments and files last. External IDs on every object enable upsert-based matching.
Migration Approach Decision
| Factor | Big-Bang | Phased |
|---|---|---|
| Risk | Higher - all-or-nothing | Lower - incremental validation |
| Downtime | Single extended window | Multiple shorter windows |
| Complexity | Simpler plan, harder execution | Complex plan, easier execution |
| Data consistency | Guaranteed at cutover | Requires delta sync between phases |
| CTA recommendation | Small orgs, simple data | Large orgs, complex dependencies |
Common Mistakes
Migration gotchas
- No external IDs: how will you match records between systems during migration?
- Wrong load order: loading Contacts before Accounts causes lookup failures
- No validation plan: how do you verify record counts, relationship integrity, data quality post-load?
- No rollback: judges ask “what if the migration fails halfway?” Have an answer
- Saying “extract, cleanse, transform, load” without specifics: this is a buzzword trap. Name the tools, the rules, the schedule
Domains scored: Data (D3), Integration (D5)
4. Governance & DevOps Framework
Purpose: Environment strategy, CI/CD pipeline, release management, and organizational governance. This covers all 6 objectives of Domain 6.
What to Include
| Element | Details |
|---|---|
| Environments | Dev sandboxes, partial copy, full copy, staging, production |
| Branching strategy | Feature branches, integration, release, main |
| CI/CD pipeline | Source control -> build -> test -> deploy (with tool names) |
| Testing strategy | Unit, integration, UAT, regression (with coverage targets) |
| Release cadence | Sprint-based, quarterly, ad-hoc |
| Governance model | CoE, architecture review board, change advisory board |
| Code review | Peer review, automated analysis (PMD, ESLint) |
| Deployment tools | Salesforce CLI, change sets, Gearset, Copado, AutoRABIT |
Environment Pipeline Pattern
Governance Quick-Ref
| Governance Element | Purpose | Who |
|---|---|---|
| Center of Excellence (CoE) | Standards, best practices, training | Senior architects |
| Architecture Review Board | Design sign-off for major changes | CTAs, lead architects |
| Change Advisory Board (CAB) | Production release approval | IT leadership, business |
| Code Review Process | Quality gate before merge | Peer developers |
| Automated Code Analysis | Enforce standards (PMD, ESLint) | CI pipeline |
Common Mistakes
Governance gotchas
- No sandbox refresh strategy: how often do you refresh? What data is included?
- Missing rollback plan: what happens if a production deploy fails?
- No testing in pipeline: automated tests must run before deployment, not after
- Vague governance: “we have a CoE” is not enough. Name the cadence, the stakeholders, the approval gates
- Ignoring metadata conflicts: parallel development streams cause merge conflicts. How do you handle them?
Judge Q&A Targets
| Question | Prep |
|---|---|
| ”How many sandboxes and what types?” | Developer (per dev), Partial Copy (integration + QA), Full Copy (staging) |
| “What is your branching strategy?” | Feature branches -> integration -> release -> main |
| ”Where do automated tests run?” | On PR creation and before deployment to QA |
| ”What is your rollback strategy?” | Quick deploy of last known good, metadata rollback via source control |
| ”Who approves production releases?” | CAB with business and IT sign-off |
Domains scored: Development Lifecycle (D6)
Supporting Artifacts Checklist
Before presenting, verify every supporting artifact passes this check:
| Check | System Landscape | Integration | Identity | Migration | Governance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Titled with header? | |||||
| Legend included? | |||||
| Tied to requirements? | |||||
| Error/failure paths? | N/A | Required | N/A | Required | Required |
| Volumes/counts? | Required | Required | |||
| Trade-offs annotated? |
Sources
- Salesforce Diagramming Framework - architect.salesforce.com
- CTA Diagramming Framework - FlowRepublic
- Dealing with the Critical Piece of the CTA Board: Q&A - Apex Hours
- CTA Certification Guide & Tips - Salesforce Ben
- Brief Insights from a CTA Board Judge - Dinesh Yadav
- CTA Review Board Prep Winter ‘26 - TrailblazePrep
Personal study notes for the Salesforce CTA exam. Content compiled from VJ's study notes, official Salesforce documentation, community sources, and online publicly available content, then organized and presented with AI assistance. Not affiliated with Salesforce. © 2025–2026 VJ Srivastava.