VMware Certified Advanced Professional - VMware Cloud Foundation 9.0 Automation Advanced Practice Exam: Hard Questions 2025

An enterprise is standardizing on VMware Cloud Foundation (VCF) and must expose day-2 automation to multiple application teams. Requirements: (1) teams must not see or modify other teams’ objects, (2) self-service actions must be auditable and consistent across SDDCs, (3) automation must remain functional if a single vCenter instance is unavailable, and (4) the platform team wants to minimize custom code. Which design best meets the requirements?

A platform team is designing an extensibility pattern for VCF that must (1) enforce consistent network/security controls, (2) allow teams to request app environments with different compliance tiers, and (3) ensure drift is detectable and correctable after deployment. The team plans to use Infrastructure as Code and wants the strongest governance with the least operational overhead. Which approach is most appropriate?

A company uses Aria Automation to provision VMs into VCF workload domains. They need a blueprint that can deploy to multiple vCenters while ensuring: (1) placement uses a compliance tier label, (2) networks are selected based on the same tier, and (3) users cannot override these selections. Which design best satisfies the requirement with the least blueprint duplication?

An Aria Automation deployment provisions VMs successfully, but customization (cloud-init/guest customization) intermittently fails only for templates replicated across multiple clusters. Investigation shows that the same machine image name maps to different underlying templates in different clusters, and some templates lack required tools/metadata. What is the best corrective action to prevent future intermittent failures while maintaining multi-cluster placement flexibility?

A team built a complex Aria Automation cloud template with extensibility actions that call external REST services. Under load, provisioning sometimes results in partially created resources (VM exists, but network/security configuration failed). The team needs atomic behavior: if any step fails, all created resources must be rolled back automatically and consistently. Which strategy is most appropriate?

A vRO workflow is triggered by an Aria Automation subscription on compute.provision.post. The workflow enriches CMDB data and then tags the VM in vCenter. Intermittently, the tag operation fails with “object not found,” even though the deployment shows as successful minutes later. What is the most likely root cause and best fix?

A platform team must orchestrate provisioning across VCF workloads where some steps are long-running (network micro-segmentation, IPAM reservations, external DNS), and failures require compensating actions. They also need granular observability of each step for troubleshooting. Which workflow design pattern in vRO best fits this requirement?

A vRO workflow uses multiple REST hosts to call an external API secured by OAuth tokens. During peak usage, the external API begins returning 429 (rate limit) and occasionally 401 due to token contention/expiration. The workflow currently requests a new token for every call and does not centralize error handling. What is the best improvement to increase reliability and reduce external API load?

After onboarding a new workload domain into Aria Automation, deployments to that domain fail with placement errors: “No compute resources available that satisfy constraints.” Existing domains still work. Tags were applied correctly to clusters in vCenter. Which advanced troubleshooting step is most likely to identify the issue quickly?

A company uses Aria Automation and vRO for lifecycle operations. A recent change introduced sporadic failures in a day-2 action workflow that updates NSX security groups. Failures correlate with high concurrency and show inconsistent object states (some members added twice, some removed unexpectedly). What is the best remediation to ensure idempotent, safe operations under concurrency?