Support restored access by reactivating or unlocking disabled or auto‑deactivated Salesforce accounts and reallocating license seats when required. Administrative password resets or manually generated password‑reset links allowed users to set new passwords when self‑service flows failed; replacement activation/invitation/reset links were retrieved from shared/service mailboxes or organizational queues and resent when messages were missing, delayed, expired, or marked “already used.” When users reported identical repeated reset emails or reset links that did not progress, email logs and originating sources were checked and support generated and sent a fresh reset link when appropriate.

When reset/activation links produced redirects or login loops support inspected link behavior in a browser, launched links from Chrome when default‑browser handling interfered, removed stored browser credentials and password‑manager entries, and cleared cache/cookies; in at least one recurring Okta/Salesforce failure a full workstation reboot restored normal sign‑in. For SSO users support launched Salesforce from the Okta dashboard or intranet, coordinated with Okta/identity teams to provide temporary one‑time codes or authentication bypasses, and restored Okta group membership when it caused access failures.

MFA and authenticator issues (including Salesforce Authenticator, TOTP apps and hardware keys) were resolved by removing authenticator bindings or resetting sign‑in/authentication settings so users re‑enrolled, and temporary 24‑hour access codes were issued when required. Support documented cases where an authenticator displayed a pairing phrase or word‑pair with no in‑app prompt and treated re‑binding/re‑enrollment as the remediation path. Security‑question failures (answered correctly but not accepted) were handled alongside password resets or account reactivation when required.

Sandbox/UAT access was restored by provisioning accounts with the required environment suffix (for example .uat), aligning urgent sandbox passwords with production when approved, copying permission sets from a reference user, and assigning requested profiles/permission sets; license or permission allocation requests were escalated when seats were unavailable. Provisioning conflicts from duplicate emails or test‑account collisions were resolved by locating and reactivating existing records or provisioning temporary contractor/test accounts following approval workflows.

Corporate email or name changes were resolved by updating the Salesforce username/email field to the user’s new corporate address and verifying sign‑in. Service and integration accounts were changed only after intent and approval were confirmed; stakeholders were notified of potential interruptions, password resets or temporary credentials were issued, and integrations were kept on temporary credentials until they accepted updates. When integrations were blocked by enforced MFA (for example Twilio blocked by a Salesforce Authenticator requirement) support coordinated credential or authentication changes with integration owners and identity teams to restore service.

Support communicated that accounts reactivated for inactivity could be auto‑deactivated again if no subsequent login occurred within the organization’s inactivity window. For third‑party Salesforce properties such as Trailhead that returned an error page during SSO/registration, support identified issues outside its permission boundaries and directed users to open a case with the SalesTech Service Portal so the SalesTech/Marketing Cloud owners could investigate entitlement or registration problems.

Incidents traced to consistent root causes were resolved by actions that restored add-in visibility, cleared SSO/OAuth blocks, refreshed tokens, or corrected identity links. Key observed resolutions included:

Support restored expected Lightning UI and record/list behavior by reproducing the issue as the affected user, comparing entitlements and context to a verified reference user, and restoring the minimal org‑approved entitlements or mappings required for the user experience to match the reference. Observed fixes and outcomes included:

All changes were narrowly scoped to the minimal entitlement, lookup/mapping, or business‑design change required to restore the expected UI or action behavior; where the inability to assign a user reflected an intentional design constraint, the business rule was documented and escalated for a targeted product/process decision.

Support reproduced a known Salesforce Mail Uploader / Outlook add‑in bug that prevented Outlook (desktop legacy and new) and Outlook Web uploads. In reproduced cases the only reliable workaround was restricting the Outlook add‑in to a single upload category; the implemented configuration left only the ANDERE group set to “Praxispartner” and cleared all checkboxes in the PERSONEN group, after which previously failing uploads completed. Reinstalling, signing out/in, removing/re‑adding the add‑in, or re‑authenticating did not resolve failing uploads in those reproductions. Backend session logs sometimes appeared normal while end users still experienced tracking/upload failures; intermittent Exchange errors (including ErrorItemNotFound) and instances where logging succeeded for a Contact but failed for the related Account/Opportunity were consistent with the Mail Uploader bug. Separately, Salesforce development applied a server‑side fix in one incident that restored the ability to send emails from Salesforce and resolved the associated upload failures in that case; no detailed remediation steps or root cause were documented for that fix. As interim alternatives reported by some users, reinstalling the Outlook add‑in, switching the desktop client to “Try the new Outlook,” or logging emails via Salesforce in a web browser worked in individual cases. In one support ticket the user was advised to contact Salesforce via the SalesTech Service Portal and support suggested clearing the browser cache as a possible troubleshooting step; the outcome of that suggestion was not documented. The behavior and cases were communicated to Salesforce; a permanent, broadly documented fix remained pending for other affected environments.

A broad set of telephony and CPaaS failures was resolved by matching observed symptoms to session/authentication state, browser/profile context, local machine or device state, Salesforce permission/profile alignment, integration mapping/ingestion, and targeted vendor or Salesforce code fixes. Key outcomes and observations included:

• Session/authentication and browser profile: provider UI failures, blank/white contact pads and missing screen‑pops were cleared after affected users re‑established Salesforce authentication in the same browser/profile as the CPaaS provider (forced sign‑out/sign‑in or signing into Salesforce before opening the provider). Using current Chrome builds and separating wallboard/outbound UIs into different browser instances reduced session conflicts and repeated auto‑logouts.

• Local machine and device state: at least one Twilio→Salesforce failure required replacing the user’s laptop, indicating machine or profile corruption. WebRTC/Vonage audio failures were resolved after verifying OS/browser audio device selection and headset state; one Jabra headset produced no audio until it was recharged and reconnected.

• Incoming calls that ring but show no task popup: incidents were observed where the headset rang and an OS/browser volume‑control overlay displayed a caller number while the Twilio task/screen‑pop did not appear, preventing users from accepting the call. In some of these cases standard troubleshooting (cache clear, sign‑out/sign‑in, headset replacement) did not resolve the issue and the incident required vendor investigation or re‑linking to restore agent mapping and session state; in other cases reauthentication/relinking or vendor‑side session resets cleared the failure.

• Permission and profile alignment: blank provider pages and access errors cleared after aligning affected users’ Salesforce permissions and integration components to a working reference user and having users sign in again.

• Re‑linking and vendor re‑authentication: incoming‑call accept failures, component/null‑reference errors, and missing Opportunity or screen‑pop details were cleared after re‑linking or re‑authenticating provider accounts to restore agent mapping and session state; several incidents required vendor code fixes or session resets.

• Vonage and WebRTC specifics: contact‑pad/dialer launch and WebRTC/Chrome errors were resolved after accounts were changed to Pseudo‑Agent and the Allow act as Agent flag was enabled in some tenants; other incidents required forcing a Vonage session sign‑out and vendor‑side re‑login.

• Twilio WhatsApp and consent: forced‑template UI behavior and send failures were treated as vendor/UI defects or permission/consent data issues. Messaging failures were also traced to duplicate/closed numbers or missing WhatsApp consent records; importing or setting consent on the Opportunity restored messaging where consent was the root cause.

• Predictive/outbound dialers and backlog builder: outbound/dial‑list and backlog import failures traced to inactive/incorrect dial lists, queued tasks, or the provider not being connected to Salesforce when outbound features were enabled; sales‑ops or middleware teams removed/corrected dial lists and cancelled queued tasks as needed.

• Stuck or unclosable sessions: calls that could not be closed were cleared from user sessions/queues by support when cache‑clearing and restarts did not help; transient network interruptions or corrupted local sessions were suspected in some incidents and vendor session resets were used.

• Record linking, ingestion and reporting: missing provider events in Salesforce were reconciled by correcting integration/event‑ingestion mappings, reprocessing or importing missed event streams, and reconciling provider logs to recreate Activity records.

• Code and vendor fixes: several failures required vendor code fixes or Salesforce patches to correct UI behavior and Opportunity retrieval. A defect that prevented saving/logging calls against inactive customer records was escalated and fixed to allow call logging for inactive records.

Resolutions combined user re‑login and browser/profile alignment, local machine or device replacement where environment or headset state was implicated, permission/profile corrections, provider account‑type changes, reauthentication/re‑linking, dial‑list cleanup, mapping/ingestion fixes with reprocessing of missed events, and targeted vendor or Salesforce code patches. Vendor support also cancelled queued tasks or re‑initialized vendor sessions when middleware evidence (TaskSid, event logs) required manual intervention.

Support resolved cases of misrouted or missing Email-to-Case mail by aligning mailbox aliases, forwarding targets and Email-to-Case endpoints with the intended Salesforce owners, queues and assignment mappings, and by correcting registration of system addresses in source systems. Investigations routinely confirmed the actual email source (for example Exchange forwarding, shared mailbox, or a Power Automate Flow triggered from Excel) and inspected the message headers/content in EmailMessage records; where flows or notification systems sent mail from no-reply/system addresses or omitted attendee/sender addresses, support recorded that as the cause of failed Contact/Account linking and Case-type mapping. Personal addresses and obsolete forward targets that captured users’ Sent mail or calendar invites were removed and a small number of user accounts were temporarily deactivated so Out‑of‑Office and auto‑reply messages did not associate with team queues. Case owner mappings and assignment rules were corrected where messages had been assigned to incorrect queues or to a generic “API User,” and a bug in Salesforce’s automatic assignment logic that caused unexplained reassignments to the API user was fixed. For new shared‑mailbox integrations support verified the mailbox in Salesforce Email‑to‑Case, configured Exchange forwarding to the Email‑to‑Case service address, chose the receiving queue and auto‑response/case‑type settings, and coordinated required DevOps changes. Where source systems were managed outside IT (for example Freshdesk, Microsoft Bookings or a Power Automate Flow), support escalated to or advised the system owner, documented instances where notifications omitted required sender/attendee information, and used interim manual linking and tagging until source notifications were corrected. Spam-generated Cases and automated acknowledgements that used different sender addresses were closed or reconfigured; where reply-created duplicate Cases occurred, support provided or recommended a dedicated sender/user address to prevent duplication. During troubleshooting support inspected EmailMessage records and demonstrated where messages had been automatically linked to an existing Parent Case (explaining apparent missing mail). Support also noted that standard Salesforce behavior did not present a single incoming email as one Case across multiple queue lists without custom development, which risked creating duplicate Cases when multiple queue addresses were recipients. Complex filtering or internal routing errors were escalated to development or the Salesforce specialist team, and where IT Ops lacked permissions Salesforce developers completed Email‑to‑Case configuration and resolved residual routing errors.

Two distinct root causes were identified and addressed. 1) Invisible or improperly encoded characters inside Lightning HTML templates were removed by cleaning the template source: support extracted the template HTML into a plain‑text editor, removed non‑printing characters and non‑breaking spaces, normalized line breaks, then replaced the cleaned HTML in the Salesforce template; in some cases deleting and manually retyping the affected sentence in the template editor also resolved the artifact. 2) Cases where typed letters were rendered as special characters in the Case email compose/reply editor were resolved by reinstalling the IU Brand fonts on the user workstation; fonts were obtained from the IU Brand Hub on the Okta Dashboard or from a pre‑downloaded copy provided by support. 3) CSV imports that mangled non‑ASCII characters (for example, German umlauts) were resolved by configuring Data Loader to use UTF‑8: the Data Loader settings for "Read all CSVs with UTF-8 encoding" and "Write all CSVs with UTF-8 encoding" were enabled, which prevented character corruption during upload.

Two distinct root causes were observed and handled differently. For Salesforce Lightning email templates embedded into reply messages, template HTML was modified to include a CSS style block that forced vertical overflow (setting overflow-y), which restored mouse-wheel scrolling and made scrollbars visible in Chrome. For the uncontrolled upward-jump seen in standard Salesforce reports, no client-side permanent fix was available; the behaviour was reproduced locally, reported to development as a suspected Salesforce bug, and only workarounds were reliable. The dependable workarounds were to click-and-drag the right-side scrollbar to reach content and, in some environments, to use keyboard-arrow navigation (keyboard navigation was inconsistent across users/browsers). The report slip-back occurred with mouse-wheel input and was observed in Chrome, Edge and Firefox.

Multiple Lightning UI failure modes and related functional issues were resolved through a mixture of client-side remediation, scoped investigation, developer fixes, and Salesforce platform-side changes or service recovery. Observed remediations and outcomes included: clearing browser cache and cookies, restarting or switching browsers (for example using Edge or Firefox when Chrome blocked UI), refreshing pages after developer/backend deployments, and in one report a full machine reboot restored access. Transient error banners were sometimes cleared to temporarily restore UI access while the underlying application-level problems were investigated. Persistent client-side JavaScript errors (notably stack traces originating from aura_prod.js and a reproduced Lightning global-search error “Cannot read property 'setTimeout' of null”) were treated as scoped faults: screenshots and client-side stack traces were captured, scope (single user/account vs global) was confirmed, component stacks and account-specific differences (permissions, profiles, user settings) were examined, and issues were escalated to Salesforce when local remediation failed. Some incidents resolved only after Salesforce platform updates or service recovery; others were fixed by internal developer deployments. Functional symptoms that accompanied UI errors—such as newly created records not being saved or integration events (for example Twilio call attempts) not being recorded—were routed to the appropriate application or integration owners for follow-up while UI errors were handled separately. Large unfiltered user-selection dialogs were avoided by narrowing result sets to prevent rendering huge lists. Failures seen only when opening links in a new tab were worked around by opening items in the same tab in several cases; at least one such case was later corrected by a Salesforce platform update, and one Account-ID lookup issue was mitigated via a validated URL-based workaround until Salesforce applied a platform fix. A distinct startup/login error for a single user was resolved by changing a checkbox in that user’s Salesforce User Details and having the user log in again. In one Service Cloud incident where a duplicate case could not be accepted or have its status changed and no explicit errors were shown, the user removed the duplicate by moving it to the Spam folder. Support triage behavior observed in new reports included requests to clarify whether the problem affected Salesforce or external systems (for example Power BI); in at least one case support removed their component from the case and closed it after no user response, with no technical fix documented.

Missing or non-functional Salesforce Lightning email templates and related assets were resolved through two complementary tracks: asset recreation and permission remediation. Missing MSE Students Office (BER) templates were recreated from a preserved base layout (MSE_StudentsOffice_BER_Empty_Answer) and populated with submitted bodies (identity-verification fields, Certificate of Study text, and placeholders for images/attachments). When operations failed or visibility was incorrect, investigations repeatedly traced intermittent or partial failures to incomplete folder- or record-level permissions; affected folders were aligned with a known-working folder and “Manage” rights were granted on email-template folders (in some cases by folder ID) so requesters could add, edit, and delete templates. Restoring requesters’ membership in the correct Salesforce public group re-enabled save/edit rights after browser- and cache checks failed. For sandbox-specific issues, specialists restored create/change rights for letterheads and templates in UAT and, when production admin rights were not appropriate, a permission set was assigned in UAT to enable designated users to create templates for the MSE Student Services group prior to scheduled deployment to Production. Investigations also included permission comparisons against a reference user, reviews of folder-level Share options and configured sender addresses, and escalation to Salesforce specialists when deeper analysis was required. Where requests fell outside IT’s account-creation responsibilities (for example application-level edit rights for advanced letterheads), users were redirected to the SalesTech team and no application-permission changes were made by IT. All recreations, access changes, permission-set assignments, specialist escalations, and related findings were recorded in ticket comments.

Multiple distinct root causes were observed and resolved across incidents. Incorrect sender display names were corrected by updating the user's Salesforce Profile → Email → My Email Settings ('Email Name'), which changed the display value used on outbound messages. Incorrect sender email addresses that were automatically inserted into reply signatures were traced to Service Cloud signature/template configuration; those signature templates were owned and updated by the Service Cloud signature administrator. Expected 'from' addresses that did not appear as selectable options when replying or composing were absent from Salesforce's selectable email/from-address configuration; adding the missing addresses restored them for replies (manual entry was used as a temporary workaround in some cases). Cases where a user could send from a shared/org address on one object but not another were caused by missing object-level send permissions; resolution required granting send rights at the object level via the organization's permission-change process. Support workflows varied: some account-creation teams redirected users to the SalesTech Jira Service Management portal, while other permission changes were processed via the Berechtigungsanpassungen service. One incident recorded an error when expanding full email history using the 'Alle anzeigen' / 'Show all' button; no technical remediation was recorded in that ticket and the user was referred to SalesTech/Jira Service Management.

Access, routing and visibility incidents were resolved by restoring object- and group-level permissions, repairing or recreating deleted or orphaned queues and their membership, and correcting queue filters and routing mappings so case delivery matched intended business rules. Where users could not act as a queue owner (for example they could not close a Case while the queue was the owner or macros could not set the queue as Owner) or received explicit permission errors when merging Cases unless the Case was first assigned to them, remediation included aligning affected users’ profiles and permission sets with reference users who already had the required case permissions and ensuring the queue membership/owner-selection scopes matched the queues used successfully elsewhere. Assignment-email notification issues were traced to queue membership: support confirmed assignment-to-queue emails were sent to queue members and inconsistent delivery correlated with differences in membership or notification state; remediation included removing unintended members or aligning membership/notification settings so only intended recipients received assignment alerts. Queue-name and mapping mismatches that prevented cases from reaching a queue were fixed by restoring expected queue names or updating routing/field mappings so incoming case labels matched queue filters. Case- and task-ownership gaps introduced by cloning or account changes were corrected by reassigning ownership (single or mass transfers) or by restoring the user/group memberships that controlled visibility. Lightning email-template, Quick Text and dashboard folder access was restored by repairing or recreating the Public Groups used for folder sharing or by granting folder-level rights after confirming intended scopes; administrators often copied or aligned affected users’ permission sets to a reference user who already had correct access. Mailbox and sender-selection problems were cleared after mailbox/send-as/send-on-behalf mappings and Salesforce sender configuration were corrected and affected user primary-email/alias fields were updated; inappropriate team-mailbox or group memberships were removed while preserving inbound routing. Telephony and dialer issues (missing Dialer/Phone tab or absent inbound-call logs) were resolved by reconciling Okta/SAML/Vonage provisioning mappings with Salesforce user records, restoring required dialer licenses and permission sets, and reattaching call records where integration mappings had broken. Inactive/reactivated user visibility was bulk-repaired where group membership controlled access. Unauthorized or surprising team memberships (including privileged groups) were removed and remediated after auditing membership sources and correcting provisioning mappings or reference-user assignments (for example HR/Okta/AD feeds or manual reference-account logic). Misconfigured Case list-view sharing and location-assignment scopes that had granted unintended view/edit access were identified and corrected so list visibility matched record-sharing policies. Requests for elevated or broader access were fulfilled by provisioning or adjusting dedicated accounts/profiles and documenting the applied permission scope; mass transfers and ownership changes were coordinated with analytics/reporting teams when required. When changes required ITSM approval, approvals were recorded in the IT Service Portal before rights were applied. In a subset of cases where merging remained unresolved after initial permission alignment, further entitlement adjustments and deeper profile/permission-set reviews were required to fully restore merge capability.

Support verified the exact sandbox username (including the ".uat" suffix) and confirmed the correct sandbox domain, then inspected the UAT org for the account’s presence and status. Self‑service resets frequently failed (the UI sometimes looped at an email‑verification prompt and never displayed a reset form) or produced links that redirected to production when the wrong domain was used; these cases were resolved when administrators issued password resets or triggered activation emails from inside the UAT org. Administrators reactivated/unlocked inactive users or created new UAT users matched to a provided reference user and then resent activation/confirmation messages; users gained access after completing confirmation within observed lifetimes (reset links ~24 hours, activation links ~72 hours). When activation/reset emails referenced an incorrect primary address, administrators corrected the sandbox user’s primary email before reissuing the message. Okta could show the Salesforce app even for inactive or unprovisioned UAT accounts; resolution required activation/reactivation inside the UAT org. An observed 403 response to c.salesforce.com was resolved after confirming the correct sandbox domain and username and reissuing an administrative reset. Failures of certain browser extensions in UAT (for example, ORGanizer) were resolved by administrative changes in the UAT org rather than client‑side cache/reauthentication. Requests for non‑MFA/service automation accounts and production/API users were handled separately and provisioned when a reference user and required entitlements were provided.

Investigations identified multiple repeatable root causes and the actions that restored correct contract/offer creation, DMS generation, and case-closure processing. Key findings and observed fixes included: - Missing required data on target or related records (most commonly Account.Country, Case.Topic, or required Contract/Opportunity fields) had prevented creation or downstream updates; populating and saving those fields restored processing. - Account-level assignments and framework discounts sometimes were omitted when the assignment was unconfirmed; confirming the assignment and recreating the contract restored the discount. Separately, several intermittent cases were observed where an active, linked framework-cooperation discount existed but was not applied on the first creation attempt; repeating the contract creation until a subsequent run succeeded resulted in the discount being applied (indicating transient propagation or timing-related processing). - Post-insert Apex triggers or Flows occasionally failed when subsequent updates were rejected by validation rules on related records (for example an AfterInsert Contract trigger caused a DateOfBirth__c-in-the-future FIELD_CUSTOM_VALIDATION_EXCEPTION); correcting the invalid data and retrying completed processing. - Transient template or mapping/rendering state problems left price and discount fields blank or produced incorrect output in some runs; regenerating the DMS output or applying a backend mapping/rendering deployment restored correct population and removed garbled artifacts. - Display mismatches were seen where the OBW summary in Salesforce showed a specific study program but the downloaded offer PDF showed a generic program name (one reported case involved a specialized program starting next year); that case was handled by routing to Salesforce Keyusers for product/process clarification and potential template/mapping updates—no technical change was applied in the reported instance. - Record-level anomalies and permission inconsistencies (archived Opportunities, incorrect primary/archive flags, quarter- or date-selection logic) blocked creation for specific Opportunity/contract folders; unarchiving or correcting flags and permissions allowed creation. - A distinct fault that produced contracts using the current date instead of the program/start date was escalated to development and resolved by adjusting date-assignment logic; the Salesforce key user was notified. - In straightforward cases where no deeper data, template, mapping, or permission fault persisted, creating a new contract record completed the workflow and produced the confirmation email. Overall resolutions ranged from data correction and confirmation of account assignments, to recreating contracts or regenerating DMS/rendering state; intermittent omissions of framework discounts were observed to resolve after retrying contract creation when no validation errors or missing data were present.

An administrator reactivated the affected Salesforce account(s) and detached the stale Salesforce Authenticator registration/connection that was preventing verification. After a short propagation window (~5–10 minutes) the user completed a fresh MFA registration and regained access. Reactivation also restored delivery of password and reset emails that had been blocked while the account was deactivated. In a separate case where an existing test user’s email was changed to a service-account address the Salesforce Authenticator remained linked to the previous owner and blocked verification; removing the stale MFA binding allowed MFA to be reconfigured but report subscription notification emails to the new address still did not arrive and the issue required escalation for further investigation.

Incidents were resolved by completing Salesforce sender-address verification and applying configuration fixes when necessary. Support resent or generated verification emails and completed verification for affected sender addresses; after verification outbound sends succeeded and messages that previously arrived without attachments were delivered with attachments. Change-confirmation emails for 'from' address updates sometimes landed in mailbox owners' mailboxes; support located mailbox owners or moved confirmations into the organizational verification queue so an accessible account could complete verification. Verification links were time-limited (observed examples: 24 hours and 72 hours). Browser sign-in or cached session state blocked verification in several cases; clearing the browser cache or using an alternate browser (for example Chrome instead of Internet Explorer) allowed confirmation and resolved cases where Salesforce showed an Activity but recipients did not receive mail. For errors tied to an incorrect sender identity, support updated default sender mappings and adjusted permissions so the requested organizational sender could be used. Support also investigated email-template and template-folder permissions when symptoms included a situation where support could send using a user's account but the user could not; correcting template-folder permissions or relocating templates resolved those incidents. In a subset of cases, after verifying the user's Salesforce email configuration support escalated to the specialist/backend team and a backend or configuration fix was applied; sending then succeeded. Support confirmed with users that email composition and sending worked after these actions.

Investigations found multiple root causes across middleware, Salesforce data, the applicant portal, and EPOS/CARE; remediation was applied per root cause. Key outcomes and fixes included: populating or correcting missing AcademyId, UUID and CP Account ID values on Salesforce Accounts and related company records so ProfileLinkedToCare events and CARE profile URLs were generated; disassociating UUIDs that were incorrectly tied to employee or other CARE/APOS profiles and recreating or re-linking applicants or accounts (in some cases recreating applicants with a private/non-employee email) so bookings moved to the correct CARE profile; and resetting Opportunities/cases and rerunning Transfer2EPOS where transfers had partially completed. Middleware and integration fixes were deployed to address intermittent Transfer2EPOS failures and propagation problems; duplicate-record and propagation problems were remediated by middleware patches plus Salesforce record reconciliation and merges so AcademyId/UUID/CP Account ID values could propagate. Portal-originated outcomes recorded before a transferable Study Match/result existed were remedied by ensuring or recreating the Study Match/result and re-running the transfer. Where a CARE profile existed but the SharePoint folder/link was absent, teams added the SharePoint folder/link in CARE (respecting CARE permissions) and entered the SharePoint link on the Salesforce record; deeper Prometheus/EPOS permission or sync issues were escalated to the Prometheus team. For applicants who could not update an email because the address was associated with a closed or duplicate Salesforce account, cases were routed to portal process owners or the IU Meldeportal to remove the email or clear the applicant-portal active state; merges that reported an active portal account were resolved by portal administrators clearing the lingering portal-active flag. In at least one incident, adding the CP Account ID (in addition to AcademyId) on the Salesforce Account re-established the missing EPOS/CARE link; incomplete Finance-tab data observed in CARE after linking required specialist follow-up. For unreliable file transfers where Transfer2EPOS did not move uploaded files, users used a documented workaround of downloading files from Salesforce and uploading them into CARE; development received reproduction details for further investigation. Isolated Care→Salesforce silent field-sync incidents (for example address updates that did not propagate and produced no logged errors) were recorded and escalated for monitoring or specialist follow-up when recurrence or broader impact was observed. Separately, a 2025 incident where Calendly bookings for Einzelberatung (EB) did not create Opportunity booking records was recorded: platform IT did not perform a direct fix and the case was routed to the appropriate sales/integration owners for investigation and remediation of the Calendly→Salesforce integration. Where support lacked permissions or issues required specialist intervention (including sandbox/UAT transfers or messages such as “Vermitteltes Unternehmen mit UUID fehlt”), cases were routed to SalesTech/Salesforce specialist portals or escalated via Jira Service Management.

The issue was resolved by sending the invitations from the Opportunity record-level email object instead of using Salesforce List Email. After switching to Opportunity-level emails (sending via the Opportunity email action rather than List Email), the invitation messages were delivered successfully and the change was confirmed via Teams.

Multiple distinct root causes across data, automation, and integrations were identified and remediated per object and integration. Data-quality work removed or consolidated duplicate, fake, or mismatched records, repaired merge artifacts and link errors, restored overwritten field values from audit history or backups, and recovered deleted Accounts from Salesforce’s Recycle Bin; a centralized duplicate-handling team completed merges that end users could not perform and temporarily adjusted permissions where merges left records non-editable so Accounts, Contacts, Opportunities, and subordinate relationships could be reassigned and corrected. Where Salesforce automation or external integrations had overwritten fields (confirmed via audit history), the responsible flows/triggers or integration updates were disabled or corrected. CTI-to-Salesforce matching logic was changed to prefer the active/primary Opportunity (using contract-signing indicators and most-recent CloseDate) instead of older duplicate records, restoring correct inbound call pops and Opportunity lookups. Twilio/Power-Outbound routing and task-creation configuration were adjusted so per-Opportunity/per-unit outbound tasks were created and linked correctly; persistent POB state conditions were cleared (in some cases via Opportunity-status toggles) and visible stale Tasks were closed to stop repeated outbound auto-dials. A Twilio/Power-Outbound UI-state bug that surfaced stale or mismatched displays under brief network interruptions was fixed. Investigations found a stage-based mapping/filter condition that prevented Twilio-created Tasks from being attached to Opportunities once those Opportunities reached the “Bewerbung” stage; mapping rules were corrected and previously unlinked call Tasks were relinked using provided Task SIDs and activity-history forensic data. Sales Push/POB imports and BoB/contract-offer matching were reviewed and representative records documented. Service Cloud email-threading was confirmed to be automatic grouping by recognized senders/headers and stakeholders were informed; requests for thread-rule or merge-exclusion changes were routed to Salesforce specialists and Product Owners. Applicant-portal issues were addressed by re-running portal duplicate matching and applying a portal configuration change that had been preventing account merges. For WhatsApp Channel Switch, Twilio/WhatsApp session semantics were documented as capable of surfacing duplicate or outdated conversation windows; agents were instructed on the template-message workaround when channel-switch occurred and the behavior was recorded as a platform limitation. External-booking symptoms were resolved by updating Calendly→Salesforce sync and call-task automation so booked appointments populated Opportunity appointment fields and outbound-call automation respected those bookings. Each remediation was applied to affected records or integration components and resolved the corresponding symptoms.

A combination of dashboard-filter mapping, report configuration, data-quality, and sync issues were identified and corrected so dashboards, reports, and downstream exports returned expected records, related-field values, and reconciled totals. Key remediations and outcomes included:

After these corrections and mitigations, affected dashboards, reports, and downstream exports returned expected records, related-field values, and reconciled totals.

WhatsApp link failures were resolved by correcting user profiles and normalizing phone data: affected user profiles were updated to contain valid mobile numbers, the users' "WhatsApp available" flag was enabled where present, and mobile numbers were normalized by removing spaces, slashes and other separators so the generated WhatsApp URL was valid. After those profile changes, the Lightning email templates were re-tested and WhatsApp links opened correctly. SharePoint intranet guidance was updated to specify required phone-number formatting and to note the WhatsApp availability setting to reduce recurrence. A separate case involved Calendly booking links that displayed "Diese Funktion ist bald verfügbar" when sent from a specific sender via a Salesforce template while the identical Calendly URL worked outside Salesforce. Troubleshooting included browser tests in Firefox and Chrome with cleared caches; the behaviour pointed to sender-specific account/profile or internal licensing/settings affecting the template-generated link rather than the external Calendly event URL itself, and the issue required further investigation of the sender's Salesforce profile and internal license records.

Administrators, champions and developers corrected Salesforce records, integrations and mappings so templates, routing, reports and contract artifacts displayed intended information. Personal-data fixes included updating Account and Contact name fields, storing additional given names in the 'Weiterer Vorname' field so name changes persisted, removing or replacing private or obsolete email addresses on Contact Point records, and changing the primary email on Contacts/PersonAccounts when institutional study addresses remained active. Where edits were restricted teams set contact points to opt‑out or escalated unresolved records to Salesforce specialist/SalesTech teams; in one case frontline support lacked permissions and the requester was routed to the SalesTech Service Portal, and SalesTech subsequently completed the corrective action. When outdated emails appeared in contact‑picker controls but were not present on Salesforce records investigations included external sources (for example Microsoft/Exchange accounts, Okta and local/personal address books) and caches; remediation involved removing the stale address from the authoritative source or correcting the Salesforce contact point where it originated. Lookup and product-data issues were resolved by clearing or correcting Opportunity lookup values (for example 'vermitteltes Unternehmen'), updating Program lookup labels and product/catalog entries in production (for example removing obsolete specializations and adding new Vertiefungen to Product 10007849), and fixing DS/DMS switch data so programs appeared for the intended intake. Development fixes addressed website ingestion and validation logic that had allowed prohibited study-program + campus + intake combinations into Salesforce. Campus and location attribution was restored by updating user and account campus/location fields, reassigning postal codes via the Salesforce Postal Code Mapping page, applying direct user-location assignments, and escalating records with campusexternalid but empty visible Campus/reporting fields to platform support for platform-side restoration. Contract and template issues were fixed by updating contract and template configuration, adding missing templates and guides, and—when incorrect intake or end dates persisted—deleting and recreating contract bundles (champions performed deletions when end-users lacked permissions). For bulk corrections developers executed mass updates (for example populating Lost Reason = 'Terminated by IU' and Lost Reason Details = 'Switching to a campus university (academy)' on affected FI opportunity records). External form and website mapping problems were resolved by updating application-portal/website mappings that populate Entryformular so submissions mapped to the correct values (for example LIBF UK mapping to 'Interest' or 'Application' instead of 'UpperFunnel_Lead'). For site-specific data‑completeness requests support obtained site‑manager approval for personal‑data exports, produced Salesforce reports listing colleagues assigned to a site (including telephone, mobile, and site‑address fields), exported results to Excel and delivered files to requesters. Where profile or work‑information fields were sourced from an authoritative system (for example job title/position from Workday) the source was identified and changes were applied in that authoritative system so they propagated to Salesforce. Investigations that showed 'Automated Process' as the executing user were escalated to platform/SalesTech or specialist teams because frontline support often lacked permissions to trace or reverse platform-side automation.

Support investigated users' per-user Chatter and profile settings and corrected profile-level email entries where they were missing or incorrect. For missing Chatter mention/post notifications, support added users' My Email-to-Salesforce addresses and enabled the Lightning Chatter setting 'Email on every post'; after those changes Chatter emails were delivered to Outlook inboxes. For automated confirmation emails to shared mailboxes, support updated the affected users' Salesforce profile email addresses; after the profile email corrections confirmation emails resumed delivery. For outbound Outlook messages that failed to log in Salesforce (including mass-email scenarios), support added the specific sender address to the user's Email-to-Salesforce allowed-addresses list; this resolved the error message "Add your email address to the list of allowed email addresses in Email-to-Salesforce user settings" and allowed sent messages to be recorded. In cases where users could not change their account email via the Salesforce UI, support routed the request to the designated Salesforce team via the Atlassian Service Desk (Salesforce Tech Portal) because IT support could not directly modify those account email values.

Investigations grouped failures into recurring server-side and permission causes and highlighted an access-path limitation between frontline support, SalesTech, and Admin teams. What resolved these incidents included: - Folder and sharing: Items existed but resided in folders the user or group could not access or from which users had been removed; access was restored by correcting folder read/write/creation sharing, changing folder ownership, or re-adding users to team-shared folders or public groups. - Profile/role and default-dashboard mismatch: Users who changed role or profile sometimes retained the previous dashboard or had no dashboard because the target profile had no default dashboard; these were resolved by assigning the correct dashboard to the user or profile, adding dashboards to the user’s favorites, or granting access via the appropriate profile/group. Support frequently provided lists of available dashboards and requested exact dashboard names/screenshots and a key-user reference when the desired dashboard was not obvious. - Support intake and escalation paths: Some requests arrived through external intake channels where frontline teams lacked privileges; SalesTech performed access triage but often routed provisioning or profile/dashboard assignment to the Admin team. Some tickets were closed as “Won’t Do” when insufficient information was supplied. - Permission/profile/group gaps: Missing permission sets, profiles, or public-group membership prevented access; fixes assigned the required permission sets/profiles or added users to required public groups after approvals. - Field- and object-level visibility: Reports rendered errors (for example “the filter logic refers to an undefined filter”) when users lacked access to fields used by a report; resolving field-level security and aligning permission sets corrected rendering failures. - Dashboard drill-through: Visible dashboards failed to drill into underlying reports when those reports were inaccessible; granting access to the referenced reports resolved drill-through failures. - Moved/renamed/deleted content: 404s or “invalid cross reference id” errors occurred for moved, renamed, or deleted content; items were restored from known-good references or from the recycle bin when available. - Pending external approvals: External access-approval workflows were found to leave requests pending and block access until approvals completed; completion of the approval restored access. - Client-side transient issues: Some failures reproduced in the affected account were cleared by removing browser cache/cookies and restarting the browser. - Org-level/migration impacts: Sales Cloud queue and case-visibility failures that showed no cases or missing historical/closed cases despite correct permissions were escalated to platform or migration teams because root causes traced to org-level changes or migrations rather than individual folder or profile settings. - Short-term workarounds and validation: Read-only workarounds used included adding dashboards/reports to users’ favorites or providing direct report/dashboard URLs; fixes were commonly validated by signing in as the affected user or by user confirmation after platform-team remediation.

The failures were caused by the org reaching its limit for dashboards that can run as the logged-in user (Salesforce dynamic dashboard limit). Support checked dashboard 'View Dashboard As' settings and referenced Salesforce dynamic dashboards limits to confirm the root cause. A workaround was used to preserve the original dashboard while creating an editable copy: the dashboard's 'View Dashboard As' was changed to 'Another person', the user was selected, and 'Save As' created a copy without modifying the original. Support noted the behavior was intermittent — support sometimes could reproduce and sometimes could not — and remote sessions were used when necessary to observe the user's environment.

Issues were resolved by ensuring the dashboard 'Display as' viewer, running-user configuration, and folder/report ownership and permissions were consistent with current authorized users. In affected folders dashboards were reassigned to the requested/current user, which corrected the displayed 'Display as'/'Viewing as' text and restored edit/save capability. Dashboards whose running user referenced former employees or unauthorized accounts were changed (with requester lead approval where required) to a current user with appropriate access, which removed 'You don't have permission to view data as this user' errors and allowed saves. For dynamic dashboards where viewers could set the running user, edits were permitted after the viewer had both the Salesforce permissions 'Manage Dynamic Dashboards' and 'View My Team's Dashboards' or after folder/report ownership was granted. Cases where the UI lacked the 'view as a specific user' option were resolved after ownership/permissions and running-user alignment were corrected. Users who could not replace reports or open dashboards regained access after folder/report ownership and dashboard permissions were corrected. In some instances the dashboard continued to display another user's view because of a stale browser session or cache; clearing the browser cache/session resolved those occurrences where backend ownership and permissions were already correct.

Multiple incidents of failed or partial Lightning list-email sends and bulk add-to-campaign operations were investigated. For failures tied to processing limits when targeting large recipient sets, operations consistently completed after splitting targets into smaller batches so each list-email or bulk-add operation targeted no more than 100 recipients; in at least one case using the “overwrite member status” option allowed a bulk-add to complete while “keep member status” errored or added only a subset. Some incidents manifested as Flow interview errors, Outlook/report “couldn't add members” errors, or server-side Error IDs, indicating server-side batching/processing limits; development was notified of the underlying platform bug but no ETA for a platform fix was recorded. Separately, an incident was observed where a user attempting to send a list email to 83 recipients received an explicit daily-rate-limit message and was blocked despite not having sent list emails earlier that day; that case was escalated to development for analysis and no immediate remediation was recorded. One report of the Send List Email compose window producing no UI response was transient and resolved without recorded technical root cause. Overall, the documented mitigation for batching-related failures was to run smaller operations (≤100 recipients); daily-rate-limit blocks required developer investigation and escalation when they occurred.

Clear browser state and try alternate browsers resolved many incidents: clearing the browser cache and cookies or repeating the action in another browser restored responsiveness in multiple cases (a Twilio‑access issue was resolved this way). Several users experienced persistent multi‑second typing/input delays or widespread slowness across Chrome and Firefox that did not respond to cache clearing or reboots; technicians ran vendor system updaters (for example Lenovo System Updater) and installed available firmware and driver updates, and switching affected users to Microsoft Edge improved stability in several instances. Where client‑side or local network factors were suspected, VPN presence and local router behavior were examined and network path captures were collected when possible (ICMP/ping/traceroute to Salesforce was frequently limited). Devices that remained poorly performant after firmware and driver remediation were replaced. A separate symptom set involved dashboards/reports that showed continuous loading spinners and had the Refresh control greyed out or partially hidden; in those cases restarting the device and switching browsers did not resolve and the incidents referenced user account/profile or server‑side dashboard/report configuration and were escalated to Salesforce Technical Support when no client‑side remediation was effective.

Investigations identified multiple root causes for missing or blank rows, for matching actions returning no matches, and for Opportunity records not reflecting updated product-package (PP). Resolutions and actions were as follows:

Report owners, list/queue owners and key users were engaged to change filters, fields and permissions as needed and to align data-entry processes and status values with reporting and matching expectations.

Investigations identified four recurring root causes plus a test-data source; remediation combined targeted data fixes, access corrections, backlog cleanup, and developer fixes. 1) Conditional validation and inconsistent record state: Administrators restored expected field values/flags (examples: populated Erstberatung for Opportunities in status 'Bewerbung eingegangen', set MatchingCandidate__c to 'Besetzt', and marked terminal statuses such as Lost) which stopped validation, Apex, and Flow exceptions and corrected many incorrect Power BI/Imma extractions. 2) Duplicate/Business‑Unit blocking during contract creation: Contract-creation blocks caused by an active Opportunity in the same Business Unit/degree were traced to business-rule validation that required the competing Opportunity to be Lost before reopening or creating a contract. These incidents were resolved by identifying the correct competing Opportunity, restoring or correcting its Lost/active status (including correcting ownership or parent links so an authorized user could set Lost), and logging developer work to improve validation messaging and permission handling where UI or access boundaries caused the wrong record to appear as Lost. 3) Account parent relationship and fflib/unit-of-work interactions: A trigger chain involving AccountTrigger / AccountToAccountTrigger and AccountToAccount__c produced cannot_insert_update_activate_entity and permission-denied errors that blocked parent reassignment; affected parent links and ownership were corrected based on user-provided account details and the defect was recorded for developers to fix the trigger/unit-of-work interaction. 4) Lightning UI visibility/cache issue: Incidents where creation or updates appeared to succeed but records were not visible in Lightning were resolved by addressing client-side visibility (clearing browser cache or using an alternate browser restored visibility) and by correcting underlying record-sharing/ownership mismatches when applicable. 5) Outbound middleware backlog and data mismatches: Legacy records continued to generate outbound tasks because fixes had applied only to new status changes; a one-time bulk cleanup of outbound tasks or a customer-scoped rule removed the backlog and stopped legacy records from being retried. 6) Test-data pollution and reporting inflation: Mass-generated test Opportunities (names like 'Interessententester Test' or 'Tester') in statuses such as 'Rücklauf Vertrag' were removed or reclassified in bulk and QA test practices were coordinated to prevent recurrence. Additional remediation actions included deploying a fix so uploaded documents and attachments were reflected correctly in Opportunity control fields and reports, escalating a Position__c closure-reason defect to SalesTech, and recording systemic defects (triggers, unit-of-work interactions, permission handling, and business-rule validation/UX) for developer fixes. Immediate operational fixes consisted of restoring required fields/statuses, correcting account hierarchies and ownership to resolve permission barriers, clearing client caches when appropriate, executing middleware backlog cleanup, and reclassifying or removing test data where necessary.

Incidents were resolved by restoring Salesforce recognition/display of contract artifacts, repairing broken external links, fixing the Files component, and addressing backend errors affecting generation and storage. Observed fixes and actions included: recreating contract artifacts and re-attaching them when entries were missing; removing and recreating the Vertragsmappe and reattaching its contents when the UI showed inconsistent create/delete behavior; campus Salesforce Key Users correcting record placement so an existing Vertragsmappe became recognized; backend deletion and recreation of problematic folders when the UI blocked create/delete actions; development restoring or re-enabling the Salesforce contract-document ‘Generate’ functionality when it was non-responsive; development fixes to the Salesforce Files component so attachments sent/received in Cases via the Opportunity email flow were stored and displayed in the Opportunity Files/Dateien view; and backend repairs for broken SharePoint / api.iu.org DAM links that had returned HTTP 404 so uploads and downloads succeeded. Some PDF issues that produced read-only/write-protected downloads were temporarily worked around by printing to a new PDF and later resolved by a system-level fix. Clearing affected users’ browser cache and reloading pages restored portal downloads and allowed Salesforce to record OBW submissions in several cases. Several incidents were transient and resolved after asynchronous background processing completed (~30 minutes). Specialist troubleshooting recorded isolated, session- or profile-specific visibility problems (e.g., uploader could see files while FS Immatrikulation users initially could not); logging in as other accounts with the same profile confirmed visibility differences and these particular cases resolved spontaneously after re-checks. Distorted PDF previews in Salesforce Lightning were observed where downloaded files were intact and SharePoint previews displayed correctly; cache clearing and multi-browser testing did not fix those cases and they were escalated to Salesforce development for further analysis (no definitive fix recorded in the ticket).

Incidents were treated as process-level assignment and metadata issues and resolved through a combination of manual reconciliation, targeted bulk edits, and platform fixes. When single Opportunities showed overlapping owners, the intended owner coordinated with the other assignee and responsibility was reconciled manually; such cases were logged and escalated to assignment-automation specialists and the business/Product Owner to review round‑robin logic and Salesforce workflows/triggers. Support documented occurrences where failed trigger execution had set Owner to a generic 'API user' and handled owner-clearing requests by exporting filtered Opportunity lists and performing ad‑hoc bulk updates limited to defined intake statuses while preserving owner values for contract-related statuses. Opportunities discovered under the wrong Account were remediated by closing and recreating the Opportunity on the correct Account and migrating attachments/documents because Salesforce Lightning prevented moving an Opportunity between Accounts. Reporting and assignment breakage caused by duplicate Primary Archive values was resolved after the Salesforce Add‑In was restored; Salesforce development was notified to investigate the root cause of duplicate Primary Archive assignments. Automation‑for‑Jira notes and other workflow metadata were observed during investigations but were recorded as incidental to process-level workflow issues rather than platform failures.

The investigation confirmed the local operational process: Studienberatung forwarded cancellation requests to the Studierendensekretariat, and the Studierendensekretariat issued and sent the cancellation confirmation. For this specific case the confirmation was processed by Jasmin Drescher, who was identified as the sender.

Support routed report and dashboard requests to the Platform/After Sales Analytics teams and advised users to open tickets on the Platform Analytics Jira board. The Platform Analytics team created requested reports and added them to users' Salesforce dashboards (for example, a report showing calls logged on Opportunity records). The After Sales Analytics team created and published a Salesforce dashboard scoped to the MSE‑Study Guides queue that showed total open cases per day, daily closed cases broken down by “Type: Student Services” themes (for example, Course Booking), and average duration for escalated cases until closure; access was granted to named users and the dashboard was confirmed live. A new Salesforce queue named "CMaaS" was created for the centralized On‑Campus course management team and access was granted per the provided access list. Requests to expose the Primary Opportunity "Campus Lookup" field as a myCampus list-view column were evaluated and requesters were informed that that field was not available via standard list-view configuration and required Salesforce development. Support stated it could not create Salesforce queues directly and routed queue-creation requests to Development; in one case a requester was advised to contact a named Development contact (Josephine Walch).

Investigations reproduced the failures and identified malformed HTML in the template body—specifically broken/invalid hyperlinks and certain image-related (img tag) markup—as the root causes. The issues were resolved by locating the affected private Outlook or HTML email template, inspecting and editing the raw HTML to remove or correct the invalid/broken hyperlink(s) and to fix or remove problematic image-related markup or embedded images. After the HTML was corrected, templates copied or inserted into Salesforce Lightning completed successfully and the overwrite confirmation dialog appeared as expected.

Development changed the Task Subject population logic so the Subject for OC events on MS Opportunities was built only from the Task Type and Entry Type; the Comment was removed from the Subject composition. The code/configuration change was applied and the ticket was closed.

The Data Loader package was downloaded from developer.salesforce.com/tools/data-loader, the ZIP archive was extracted, and install.bat from the unzipped folder was executed. The installer completed successfully without requiring administrative privileges and the user confirmed the Data Loader ran and allowed the required data updates.

Two distinct Round Robin issues were identified and documented. First, the Round Robin assignment logic did not reference FTE values on the Salesforce user object and provided no built‑in option to weight assignments by FTE; this limitation was confirmed and stakeholders were advised to raise a formal product/feature request for FTE‑aware distribution. Second, a recent RoundRobin configuration change caused product‑based routing to misassign MS opportunities to DS OnCampus users. That incident was investigated with Salesforce development and relevant teams, the configuration was corrected/reverted, and normal MS→MS routing resumed. It was also noted during triage that affected teams lacked permissions to reassign some opportunities; this permission restriction was recorded as part of the incident findings.

Marketing Cloud accounts and required permission levels (including developer access for tasks such as mobile push research and implementation) were normally provisioned by the Marketing Cloud administrator, Jimmy Murphy. Requesters were directed to contact the administrator (email or Microsoft Teams), the administrator provided the requested access, and access was confirmed before ticket closure. In at least one instance a reactivation request was routed back because the responding support team determined Salesforce Marketing Cloud was not managed by them; the user was instructed to contact the responsible team and the ticket was closed without recorded reactivation steps.

Support advised that Salesforce enforces a 2,000-row display limit on report results and explained that the observed long load times and 'too many rows to show' were caused by the dataset size. The user was recommended to narrow the dataset by adding filters or date ranges, splitting the query into multiple reports, or exporting the data for external analysis.

IT reviewed the request and discussed feasibility and ownership in the Jira ticket comments. The ticket was accidentally auto-marked Done by Jira but remained under review. After assessment, the initiative was paused: no separate CRM was introduced and the project was placed on hold pending available capacity from the Salesforce team to evaluate or implement the requested functionality.

Support used and recommended the Salesforce Schema Builder to view objects, fields and relationships and contacted the development/data-owner teams to confirm whether a consolidated master data-model diagram existed. Investigations found no consolidated master data-model diagram and no validation rules or triggers restricting campus + study-program or intake combinations (for example, creating an Opportunity for the Marketing Management master with the Virtual Campus selected). Stakeholders were informed of the findings and decided not to implement automated validation; the permitted program/campus mappings were instead governed by the public website, rollout plan and manual/process controls. Where Schema Builder access was missing, support noted that the development/data team was the owner of access and diagram artifacts.

Investigations found Chatter 'absence' posts were informational only and did not drive Case or Task reassignment. The root cause was a Salesforce user Out‑of‑Office flag that could be set independently of a user's calendar and, in multiple incidents, became stuck even after the calendar entry expired or was deleted. End‑user troubleshooting (log out/in, clear browser cache/cookies, try other browsers, delete the original calendar OOO entry, or create a short replacement OOO entry) did not clear the Salesforce flag in these cases. Affected users saw assignment failures including the message "This user is out of office" and no other error details. Frontline teams often lacked administrative scope to change another user's Salesforce OOO setting; in some cases support incorrectly treated the report as an account-creation or permission request and directed users to Permission Change and Bug Reporting portals without confirming remediation. SalesTech or the specialist team investigated and cleared the Salesforce Out‑of‑Office flag for the affected accounts; after the flag was cleared, Case and Task notifications, assignments, and user access returned to normal. Teams also used shared list views filtered by region or owner to surface Cases for coverage during planned or unexpected absences.

The issue was resolved after the deleted reports that were still in the user's Salesforce Recycle Bin were permanently removed (either waited for the Recycle Bin purge or emptied manually). Once the Recycle Bin no longer contained items from that folder, the folder deletion succeeded.

It was confirmed that tag‑group notifications could be extended to include an additional recipient. The request was handed to the product/BA team (named contacts included) to create a user story, and Salesforce development implemented the change to support an additional notification recipient (either by provisioning a dummy Salesforce user tied to the mailbox or by extending the tag‑group notification configuration to include the extra email). The agreed approach and implementation were tracked via the created user story and deployed through the Salesforce change process.

A cloned macro was created from the existing 'RLM – HZB enquiry EM' macro for Case use; its field values and action sequence were adjusted to set the requested Case fields, close the Case, and create a follow-up Task, and the new macro was tested on sample Cases to confirm behavior. When the macro list or pane appeared empty, support granted the Salesforce 'Run Macros' permission where appropriate; remaining cases of an empty pane were attributed to the current page not supporting macros or to no macros being configured for that page. When users lacked the ability to create or use macros because of missing permissions, administrators granted create/use macro permissions and adjusted role assignments (examples included granting Team Lead rights and assigning a Referent User); one incident required re-saving an initial permission change that had been missed. When support did not have rights to change macro permissions, users were directed to open SalesTech Service Portal requests (examples included Permission Adjustments and Bug Report portals); some tickets (including Opportunity macro permission requests) were closed after redirecting the requester to the Berechtigungsanpassungen/permissions process and did not record explicit permission changes. Intermittent failures that produced the error 'mind. einen Datensatz auswählen' ('select at least one record') despite selected records were resolved in multiple instances by clearing the user's browser cache and deleting cookies; users also reported temporary relief from repeated page refreshes. Persistent occurrences were escalated for diagnosis after obtaining a reproducible example (which records, which macro) and whether the issue occurred across browsers.

The development team reviewed the request and advised that the list view could not be deleted because it was likely required for future use. No deletion or deactivation was performed; the requester was informed of the decision and the ticket was closed.

Support repeatedly found these symptoms were caused by stale or expired client-side Salesforce view/layout state or endpoint/browser rendering/plugin issues rather than Salesforce permission or profile configuration in most cases. Observed remediations and outcomes included: a simple page refresh restored missing record actions; clearing the browser cache and cookies and restarting the browser restored the user’s name in the Case Owner picklist and removed recurring dismissible Home-page errors; switching the active Salesforce view/layout restored Favorites and recent case lists; Start/Dashboard task-list items that were intermittently missing later reappeared without server-side changes. Chrome-specific message rendering that displayed square boxes was resolved in reported cases by resetting Chrome to default settings, testing in an incognito/private window, or reinstalling fonts. When the Account field cleared during Case or email composition (while Opportunity remained), affected users recovered record context by clearing local browser state or using an incognito session; when that did not occur users manually reselected the Account and pasted email content into the record as a fallback. When UI state did not recover, affected records were manually reassigned and Favorites/recent lists were re-added; restarting the Salesforce client/application was used as a fallback. Support validated group membership and permissions when case lists or opportunity visibility appeared missing and escalated to Salesforce/Care administrators or development teams when server-side entitlement or profile changes were required. Separate incidents where files (for example PDFs) would not open in the Salesforce web UI across multiple browsers were investigated by having the user test alternate browsers and by support logging in with the user's account; when support could open the same files from their session the problem was attributed to an endpoint-specific browser/plugin issue and was forwarded to the SalesTech/endpoint team for deeper diagnosis when local administrative access was required. Salesforce did not offer a global “Mark all as read” capability (feature request logged); when a browser-displayed mark-as-read control appeared but did not function, clearing the browser cache resolved some incidents.

The missing CampaignMember rows were recovered by locating deleted records with a queryAll (IsDeleted = true) and undeleting the CampaignMember records from the Salesforce Recycle Bin using the API/undeletion tools (Data Loader/Workbench). Where entries had already dropped out of the Recycle Bin, the participants were recreated from the Excel export and re-imported into the correct CampaignId with the original status ('Teilgenommen') so reporting matched pre-deletion state. The user who deleted the records was identified in the audit history during the investigation.

The Salesforce user record was updated to the new email and the user completed the Salesforce email-change confirmation by clicking the confirmation link sent to the new address. Where Power BI still showed no values, the owner of the Power BI board adjusted board permissions to include the new email address. After the Salesforce email confirmation and the board permission update, the Power BI dashboards returned to normal for the user.

Support reproduced the issue in Firefox and used alternative access methods to allow replies to succeed. Replies were successful when the user opened the same records in the Sales Console or when switching to Chrome or Edge, which removed the immediate error and allowed email replies to be sent.

Provisioning requests were submitted via the standard Salesforce access form or the SalesTech service portal and entered an Automation for Jira approval workflow. When approvers or required user/reference‑user details were missing, support requested the missing information and left the ticket pending; when approvers or requesters did not respond within an extended period, tickets were closed/marked Done without provisioning. After approvals and complete details were available, administrators created Salesforce user accounts using the requester’s email as the username and modeled new accounts on a provided reference user; if the reference user did not exist it was created first. Assignment‑related login errors (for example, "This user is not assigned to the application") were resolved by verifying the reference user, assigning the Salesforce application and permissions in Okta, and correcting role/profile assignments. New accounts were activated by sending a Salesforce invitation or a password‑reset email and then surfaced through Okta and the intranet access page. For automation or bot testing, administrators provisioned environment‑specific test users (UAT vs Production) and created non‑MFA UAT test accounts when requested, noting MFA and account‑sharing constraints during handoff. When inaccessible Confluence pages or Care‑profile SharePoint links prevented investigations and the action was within support scope, support granted access or unlocked the links; when out of scope, support clarified the correct request channel.

A developer-side update and/or transient network issues had left the browser showing a stale Salesforce UI state while Twilio had correctly identified the current record. Specialists confirmed Twilio had recognized the correct Opportunity on inbound calls, which indicated the mismatch was client-side. The display returned to the correct Salesforce screen after the user refreshed the browser or restarted the laptop (which applied the deployed update and cleared the stale UI); in intermittent network cases the symptom resembled Twilio falling back to a previously loaded record until the browser state was refreshed.

Support staff were unable to directly resolve OBW→Salesforce upload failures because they lacked access to the OBW/applicant-portal environment. For digitally signed MSD contracts, cases were escalated to the SalesTech team via the SalesTech Atlassian service portal. Upload failures that originated from the Bewerberportal or when launching OBW from offer-email links or the website/homepage (for example myStudium/Fernstudium) were redirected to Bewerberportal/OBW support (careerpartner service portal). Ticket records typically documented the escalations and the user redirections but contained no further technical remediation details.

Issues were resolved by administrators updating the affected user's Salesforce user record and aligning profile and account attributes to the correct template. In many cases the Profile assignment was changed (for example 'DS Management' → 'DS Studienberatung') in the Salesforce UI, saved, and then verified by confirming restored permissions, dashboard membership, and downstream Power BI visibility. When a name/email change had been applied incompletely (email or other account attributes still showing the old values) administrators used a provided reference user as a template and aligned the affected user's account settings, profile and permissions to match the reference; this restored functionality such as editing applications and generating decision letters. Requesters were informed after verification. Example administrators who applied such changes include Michael Lutz (2024-11-12) and Jan Winter (2025-02-06).

The affected school account was created manually in Salesforce and email tracking for that account was restored. No system-wide validation or configuration change was applied. The user was informed that a separate permission or bug report ticket would be required to pursue a global change to email validation behaviour.

Support found that account provisioning only created Salesforce user accounts and did not grant access to EmailTemplate, Letterhead, or QuickText records or to template folders. Access to templates, letterheads and quick texts had been managed outside the provisioning process through the organisation’s Permission Change channels and designated Salesforce key users. Examples of those channels included the Berechtigungsanpassungen service portal, Microsoft Forms (Bug/Feature/General/Middleware request forms), the CareerPartner Atlassian/Jira portal, the Sales & Service Tech Portal (SalesTech, Jira Service Management) and the Teams channel “Salesforce Key User.” Key users were trained to create or adjust templates within their remit and to escalate technical or system-level template changes to IT support or development. When the template-sharing UI was disabled (for example the “share template list” option was grayed out), administrators sometimes restored access by applying permission sets that included the template‑sharing entitlement; at least one admin reported immediate access after applying a permission set. Support teams frequently lacked the rights to grant template, folder or quick-text access directly and therefore instructed users to submit requests via the external permission-change channels (for example Microsoft Forms); several tickets recorded subsequent access being granted but without documentation of who made the change or the exact steps taken. A few incidents involved templates that could not be applied from specific pages (such as Opportunities); those were occasionally resolved by end users or support and support recommended clearing the browser cache when template-use errors recurred. Support also sometimes identified another existing user who already had access or performed isolated ad hoc restorations of missing templates or folders, but those restorations were not consistently documented. Some cases were escalated to SalesTech after IT ceased maintaining Salesforce.

A Salesforce configuration/setting was changed to prevent a null object from being dereferenced inside the Vonage getToggles call. After the Salesforce setting adjustment the runtime error message ceased appearing in the UI.

Salesforce's standard email-change confirmation flow applied when users requested a new address: Salesforce sent a confirmation message to the new address and, after the user clicked the confirmation link, the account email was updated successfully; no additional administrative actions were required in those cases. Separately, some users experienced the change reverting or failing to persist without error; support resolved those incidents by manually updating the Email field on the Salesforce account record (ticket notes did not document detailed admin steps). Example addresses encountered in tickets included admission-international@iu.org and info-dualesstudium@iu.org.

Engineering identified two distinct root causes for repeated outbound Twilio dials/notifications and repeated resurfacing of the same Salesforce Opportunity. First, a scheduling/integration logic bug in the Power Outbound ↔ Twilio flow caused redundant outbound attempts and resurfacing of Opportunities despite same‑day call records; developers corrected the integration logic and deployed the fix to production, and support confirmed the duplicate‑call/notification behaviour stopped after deployment (support comment dated 2024-10-30). Second, an operational/recording edge case occurred when Twilio tasks had been created or queued before Salesforce data cleanup or before new Journey filters were active, and when duplicate/twin Opportunity records existed; pre‑queued tasks (or tasks attached to a different/primary Opportunity) could still execute and call clients even though the visible duplicate Opportunity showed no Task. Some duplicate attempts manifested as very short (~1‑second) call drops that prevented the agent iFrame from loading and blocked agents from copying the TaskSid, which increased reliance on backend/administrative removal. For immediate, case‑level mitigation in both scenarios, support removed or closed the lingering Twilio task tied to the affected Opportunity (including backend deletion when the UI blocked access) or corrected the duplicate Opportunity record (merge/delete) so the Twilio Task and Opportunity records aligned; closing/removing the lingering Twilio task or correcting the duplicate record stopped the repeated outbound actions/notifications for that record. Incidents involved both voice dialing and WhatsApp notifications tied to Twilio tasks, and additional per‑case investigations documented instances where agents could not obtain TaskSids from the UI.

Investigators identified two resolved failure modes and one ongoing investigation. 1) Transient connectivity or browser hangs could leave the embedded Salesforce i-frame in a stale state; affected sessions were recovered by reloading the browser page so the i-frame reloaded and its content matched the active task. 2) When the i-frame failed to render Opportunity data and returned an explicit 'No UUID found' error (page refresh did not recover), the condition was fixed by deploying targeted bug fixes to the Twilio–Salesforce integration / iFrame component; no Salesforce or Twilio configuration changes were required for these fixes. 3) Separate reports of WhatsApp replies missing message content in Opportunities (including cases observed after Channel Switch) were escalated to the specialist team for deeper investigation; those occurrences have not yet been attributed to a root cause and remain under investigation, with examples and Task SIDs collected for analysis.

Support traced the recorded invoice to an external sender (Mirco Bauermann / GFDB) and confirmed it had been entered into Salesforce. Internal billing contacts escalated the routing concern to the sender and to stakeholders for clarification. No Salesforce configuration fault was identified during the investigation; the incident was handled by identifying the source and querying the external sender about routing.

Investigations showed the integration marked interactions as outstanding when Salesforce interaction records did not match the integration’s expectations. In documented incidents Salesforce EEB/task records were future-dated or lacked the correct Owner after lead conversion; those state mismatches prevented telephony-side tasks from being created or caused interactions already logged to be ignored by downstream systems. Remediations in investigated cases included correcting affected Salesforce records (marking tasks completed or assigning the proper Owner) and removing or merging duplicate imported opportunities; after those corrections Twilio Schedules, Power OB, overflow routing and follow-up appointments returned to expected state. Tracing used Twilio TaskSIDs to correlate telephony tasks with Salesforce records and queuing timestamps; no explicit error codes were produced. A separate incident involving Vonage reported logged calls that appeared immediately in Salesforce then disappeared by the end of the week; PowerBI was ruled out as the source of the discrepancy, the case was escalated to Salesforce, and no technical fix was documented in that ticket. Operators were informed of the common root causes and of the usefulness of TaskSIDs (or equivalent telephony identifiers) for tracing across systems.

The onboarding team added and validated the required Caller ID entry in Salesforce and aligned the Salesforce–Twilio integration settings to use that Caller ID. After the Caller ID was configured the Twilio telephony features in Salesforce worked for the user and the issue was closed.

Access and feature failures were resolved by aligning the affected account to a named reference colleague and correcting differences in assigned app/profile, permission sets, profile‑level permissions, field‑level security (FLS), and public‑group memberships. When permission titles matched but UI/actions remained missing, permission‑set contents and profile FLS were compared and matched to the reference account. SObject field visibility issues were restored by granting field‑level access via the profile or permission set (matching the colleague’s FLS). Dashboard edit/create and widget‑customisation rights were restored by granting Manage Dashboards and Manage Private Dashboards where required and by correcting owner‑level sharing (reassigning the dashboard owner or adding the user to the owner’s allowed public groups). Domain/function failures (for example CARE uploads, MyStudium forwarding, B2B contact deletion, self‑pay contract creation) were fixed by assigning the appropriate permission templates/permission sets and adding users to required public groups; one B2B contact deletion issue required switching the user’s Salesforce profile to DS_Management after aligning other permissions. Service and test accounts that were misdiagnosed as MFA or login failures were fixed by aligning their Permission Sets and public‑group memberships to reference users in both Production and Stage/UAT. Bulk assignments of the same domain permission (generally > ~10 colleagues) were performed by Development at the Business Analyst’s request. Permission changes were allowed time to propagate (typically 5–10 minutes) and access was then verified with the requester. Requests for administrative capabilities to create public groups or to obtain admin-level group creation rights were routed to the Salesforce Admin or handled through the formal intake channels (Bug Request / Feature Request / General Questions / Middleware Request); support sometimes instructed requesters to re-submit via the proper forms. Location‑scoped access was granted by adding the requested location to the user’s Salesforce access and confirming the change with the user (for example adding 'Ulm' to a user’s access set). Permission-change requests submitted via account‑creation channels were redirected to the permission‑change service portal; Salesforce permission adjustments outside this team’s remit were routed to SalesTech or the Salesforce Admin via Jira Service Management. Role‑based or key‑user assignments that required manager/supervisor approval were applied only after approval was provided; several tickets lacked approval or follow‑up and were closed without documented resolution. Agents routinely requested a reference user and a retry when investigating access or feature‑error reports.

An administrator performed a password reset on behalf of the user and sent a new reset email. The user completed the password change using the new reset email link and regained access.

Investigations showed the routing was driven by task-based logic and by-design automation rather than application-level state checks. For Opportunity-related incidents, we reviewed Opportunity activity and found an existing task (notably “Call: Switch DS2DMS”) that triggered Power Outbound/POB (Twilio) to import/route the record into DMS; the task-based routing ignored states such as “in placement” or scheduled future bookings, and this behavior matched the current design, so findings were communicated to the reporter and no system changes were made. For the Lead that re-entered POB with status “Lost,” the case was reviewed and closed by the Salesforce Champion; the ticket did not record technical remediation steps. The standard escalation path (Salesforce Champion first, then specialist department if needed) was followed in that investigation. Overall, these incidents were resolved by confirming the existing task/integration behavior and handling the reports through the established Salesforce escalation workflow rather than by applying configuration or code changes.

Support investigations identified multiple root causes and corresponding restorations. Authentication errors and repeated failed-login entries were resolved by resetting the user’s Salesforce authorization and reissuing the Outlook integration invitation to re-establish the mailbox-to-account link. When the add-in had been unlinked or disabled at the mailbox or tenant level, functionality returned after restoring or re-enabling the Salesforce Add-In at that level. Desktop-only failures that did not occur on Outlook Web/App were restored after an authenticated Outlook Web session existed when the desktop add-in was launched; transient client-state problems were also resolved by restarting the workstation. Client-side add-in corruption was remedied by removing/uninstalling and then re-adding the Salesforce add-in on the desktop, and Outlook Web frequently served as a functional workaround. Cases that blocked with the "the service has not been set up yet; contact the Salesforce Administrator" message required backend service configuration; after the service was configured the Outlook Salesforce add-in resumed functioning. Several incidents involved accounts that accessed Salesforce only via Okta SSO and had no local Salesforce password or had expired password-reset links; those prevented the add-in from completing authentication or mailbox-linking and were resolved by providing a usable Salesforce authentication path (for example by creating or resetting a Salesforce login or completing the SSO binding) so the add-in could obtain credentials. Installations sourced from the Microsoft Store that “did not work” were investigated and in our cases traced to the same authentication/SSO or local client-state issues above; verification that a usable Salesforce credential existed was confirmed as necessary. Restorations and timing were validated from Salesforce authentication logs and user reports.

Investigations showed DEV sandbox accounts were managed centrally by the Salesforce Team rather than by local IT, so no local password reset was performed. The user was given the Salesforce Team contact (Mattis Klemkow) and instructed to contact that team to have the DEV account reset/reactivated. The ticket was closed after providing the contact.

Investigations linked duplicate Twilio cases to their pre-existing Opportunity records to remove the duplicate-display symptom; Opportunity ownership and the BG appointment date were corrected manually where missing or stale. Root causes were documented: Twilio reliably surfaced the newest Opportunity record (causing Opportunity/"Oppy" leads to be delivered ahead of other items), Opportunities in stage "Eingegangen" sometimes had no Owner and some Oppys lacked associated Salesforce tasks, and the Twilio–Salesforce integration did not retroactively detect manually created tasks/appointments or auto-update BG appointment dates when rescheduled. Additional investigation of telephony routing revealed that Twilio’s prioritization/routing delivered Opportunity leads ahead of Power OB tasks, causing agents to stop receiving Power OB tasks even though ~182 open Power OB tasks existed in Salesforce; no error codes were present. The behavior and limitations of the Twilio/Salesforce integration and the routing/prioritization mismatch were recorded for triage and escalation; no systemic automation or code-level remediation was applied in these incidents and the affected records were fixed manually.

Support confirmed with the requester that the specified Salesforce account was obsolete, then disabled/deactivated the account in Salesforce. The deactivation was recorded in the support comments ("der Account ist deaktiviert"), access was verified to be blocked so the account could no longer be used, and the requester was informed. This action addressed the duplicate-account risk and prevented cases from being routed to the inactive account.

Functionality was restored in cases where the Salesforce Outlook Add-In/App had been disabled or unlinked by re-enabling or restoring the add-in in the affected user’s Outlook profile, which re-established the add-in linkage and returned the Outlook controls for saving or relating emails to Salesforce. Several incidents reported no documented remediation steps and were later marked as resolved or "Won't Do" after the user confirmed the add-in was working again, indicating transient/self-resolving behavior. In at least one incident support reproduced that compose/save worked for Cases and Opportunities using the reporter's account, so the failure was determined to be context-specific; support requested the user to specify the exact location where compose/save failed when reproduction did not match the reported failure.

We confirmed that Microsoft documented an upper bound of up to 900 API calls per minute per Power Automate Salesforce connector connection, but that this was separate from Salesforce org‑level API limits which are enforced by Salesforce and vary by license/edition. Because Microsoft Operations did not have access to the Salesforce org, the Salesforce admin examined the org's API usage (System Overview / API usage endpoints and audit/event logs) for the service account and current org consumption. Documentation links for Power Automate connector throttling and Salesforce API usage were provided so the team could correlate connector behavior with org quotas and decide on consolidating actions or pacing flows if necessary.

Support escalated the request to the specialist/template owner team and clarified that the support group could not edit Salesforce document templates. The user was advised to contact the business template owners (KeyUser/Business Analyst — named contacts provided) to have the Salesforce template adjusted. As an immediately available alternative, documents were produced via the Care Document Generator (the only template route the support team could change), and the ticket was closed after handing off to the template owners.

Support confirmed the requested actions were outside their permitted scope because they did not have the required Salesforce/admin permissions or because the relevant user account had been deactivated. Requests were escalated to the organisation's designated Salesforce Key User, FS/administration team, or the SalesTech Service Portal. The Salesforce administration or SalesTech team completed the work: they reorganised account parent/child relationships (including reparenting subaccounts in Salesforce Lightning), performed account/task/queue deletions, changed ownership and queue membership, removed or corrected email‑queue owners, applied 'do not contact' markings, and corrected record fields such as 'Internal contact' and 'Position – shared with' so downstream processes (for example case routing and bonus/contact assignments) were accurate. Identity/access management involvement was recorded where deactivated accounts prevented direct edits. Tickets were closed after the administration team completed the requested changes.

Support asked the user to retry accessing the file and requested the direct file link if the error persisted. No follow-up was provided by the reporter; support subsequently closed the ticket and assumed access was restored. The recorded troubleshooting step was limited to retrying access and collecting the failing link for further investigation.

The missing activity options were restored and the additional activity types became visible to the user. No detailed configuration changes or technical steps were recorded in the ticket; the support comment confirmed the options were now displayed and the ticket was closed.

Investigation reproduced the example and found no code error in the Basic Matching implementation. The discrepancy was attributed to different distance methodologies: the Basic Matching feature used a straight‑line/geodesic calculation (Haversine-style) based on stored coordinates, while Google Maps values reflected route/driving distances and selected routing choices, travel mode, and mapping projection/precision. The issue was documented as a design/expectation difference rather than a defect and users were informed that route-based APIs would be required when driving/walking route distances were needed instead of straight‑line radius measurements.

The Department field on the affected Salesforce user records was corrected to the expected value "FS_Recognition". Changes were saved and verified in Salesforce; one user required a second edit cycle to persist the value before the report inclusion issue was resolved. After the updates, the users appeared correctly in Power BI reporting that relies on the Department field.

The incident was resolved offline and the user's Vonage functionality was restored; the ticket did not document exact remediation steps. Support re-enabled the Vonage phone button and call-logging capability for the affected Salesforce user so calls could again be placed and logged from the Salesforce UI. No further configuration details were recorded in the ticket.

Support advised escalation to the Salesforce Key User group to review SalesForce DS product/process settings and outbound dialing lists. The ticket recorded that key users would inspect contact-preference logic and process configuration, and escalate to IT or development if a technical change was required. The support interaction closed with that handoff; no technical remediation was documented in the ticket.

The problem was escalated to SalesTech support (Salestech-Board) for investigation. The ticket did not record any remediation steps or a final resolution; it only documented the affected sender, recipient mailbox, and that the case was forwarded to the product/support board for further handling.

The ticket documented that troubleshooting was performed or recommended but did not include a confirmed fix. No resolution was recorded in the ticket; the incident remained without a documented remediation in the support log.

Two root causes were documented. When the failure was caused by VPN routing, users regained access after disconnecting the VPN (VPN-specific routing blocked access to Salesforce). For the deep‑link/default‑browser incidents no conclusive technical fix was recorded in the ticket: support verified the user's default browser change had not fixed deep‑link behavior, noted potential protocol/SSO or permission interactions, and escalated the case to Key User/permissions owners for further investigation.

Support did not apply a code fix within the ticket. The issues were treated as template/middleware problems: support captured affected Contract and Template records, flagged the pattern of identical synthetic data, requested audit/audit‑trail information and escalated to the Contract Management/Key User team to inspect automated template creation and middleware processes. No remediation was recorded in the ticket itself.

Support noted a recurring problem tied to the Salesforce File component but did not record a definitive fix in the ticket. Troubleshooting suggestions were captured (for example, toggles and cache steps) and users were advised to provide screenshots and example links. Applicant Portal upload failures were referred to the dedicated Applicant Portal support team. The ticket did not document a confirmed remediation.

Support did not implement a code change inside the ticket. The report was escalated to Key User/Key User Group for investigation of the CP Migration process and associated automations/configuration to determine whether the changes were intended or erroneous. The ticket was left for Key User analysis; no technical remediation was recorded.

No technical fix was recorded in the ticket. Support noted lack of in‑team expertise for the dashboard/middleware integration, closed the ticket as done, and advised the requester to open a support request with the Salesforce Key User / middleware team using the provided Bug/Feature/Middleware request forms so the dashboard owners could investigate transmissions and logs.

Support verified the user's Salesforce profile entry contained the correct job title and asked the requester to specify which Salesforce area showed the incorrect label. No change was applied and no corrective action was recorded in the ticket.

Support attempted reproducible testing on affected Opportunities and recorded troubleshooting observations: the error commonly appeared after the later pages of the Imma‑Check flow (occasionally after the File Upload step); basic client troubleshooting (cache clearing) and permission checks were performed; and the issue was escalated to the specialist/business owners for developer investigation (stakeholders Dan Bailey / Darrin Hawkes were referenced). The tickets did not contain a conclusive root cause or a final remedial change — the problem remained unresolved in the recorded notes and required further development‑team analysis.

Support staff did not perform profile or permission changes in these tickets and instead redirected the requests to the Salesforce/SalesTech administration channel (SalesTech - Service - Jira Service Management). Where recorded, the ticket notes showed no technical remediation performed by the IT support team; one persistent Out‑of‑Office issue was later confirmed resolved by the user after SalesTech involvement but the ticket contained no technical details about the fix. Several tickets were closed after advising the requester to contact the Salesforce/SalesTech team for profile, template or object‑level access changes.

The request was forwarded to the specialist team for evaluation. No migration work or technical changes were carried out within the ticket; the entry was later closed during a post‑Minerva cleanup with a note that a new ticket should be raised (referencing the original) if the request remained relevant.

Support granted elevated Salesforce access to the listed users by aligning their permissions to the provided reference user (elvedina.juen@iu.org). After the permission changes were applied the affected users were able to view Cases classified with higher data protection/privacy. The ticket was closed after access alignment was completed.