RCA Exam Preparation Material | Relativity Certified Administrator

Explanation:
The correct answer is A. Document - Update. Relativity’s official Audit documentation states that system admins can revert coding decisions from the Audit list, and that this action applies to the latest Document Update, Mass Update, or Propagate action on the Document object. That makes Document - Update the correct revertable action among the choices provided.
The other options are not listed by Relativity as revertable audit actions in this context. A Field - Update concerns the field object itself rather than a document coding decision. Entity - Merge may create audit records, but Relativity does not list it as an action that can be reverted through the Audit revert feature.
Redaction - Update is also not one of the documented revertable audit actions under the Audit tab’s revert capability. From an RCA perspective, this distinction matters because Audit revert is narrowly scoped to specific document-level update actions and certain supported field types .
Therefore, the correct answer is Document - Update.

Explanation:
The correct answer is C. Relativity’s official Name Normalization documentation explains that the process parses the email headers ―specifically From, To, Cc, and Bcc ―to identify aliases. It does not create aliases from every casual name reference appearing in the email body. Relativity further states that when an alias appears in the format "Doe, John" john.doe@example.com, Name Normalization stores three aliases: the full alias, the description/name portion, and the email address portion. Applying that exact documented rule here means the From value "Lin, David" David.Lin@example.com yields three aliases: "Lin, David" David.Lin@example.com, "Lin, David", and David.Lin@example.com. The To header contributes Ali.Devi@example.com.
Relativity also explicitly notes that generic aliases such as simple first names are not created in order to avoid over-merging. In addition, the alias-identification process is driven by the parsed header sections, not by every name or email string appearing in the message body. That means items such as Ali, Skylar, Rush
Jones, rjones@domain.com, and Dave Lin are not the correct header-derived aliases for this example. The body text may help Relativity with segment matching in some contexts, but the direct alias list in this question comes from the email headers .
Therefore, the correct identified aliases are the four listed in option C.

Explanation:
The correct answer is D. The same document is found in multiple data sources. Relativity’s official production documentation identifies this as a staging error. When the same document appears in more than one production data source within a single production set, Relativity generates an error message identifying the overlapping data sources and the duplicate document. This must be corrected before the production can proceed successfully.
This behavior exists because Relativity production data sources are intended to define a clear, non-conflicting set of documents and related production settings. If the same document is pulled from multiple data sources, the system cannot reliably determine which source configuration should govern that document for the production. As a result, Relativity stops the process and requires the administrator to resolve the overlap by adjusting the saved searches used as data sources.
The other options are not the documented production error in this context. Relativity does not identify “too many redactions” as the standard production error described here. Producing the image version of an unresponsive document is a review judgment issue, not a system production error. Producing a native file for a redacted document may raise workflow concerns, but it is not the specific documented staging error addressed by the production help pages .
Therefore, the correct answer is D.

Explanation:
The correct answer is A. The Family Group relational view is no longer selected. In Relativity, family relationships for emails and attachments are displayed through a relational view tied to the Group Identifier field. Relativity’s documentation explains that family groups are shown in a document list when a view is configured to display those relationships, and that the Group Identifier is the field used to associate an email with its attachments. When a relational family view is active, users can see the family grouped together in the list rather than seeing only the individual records that directly meet the filter criteria.
Once the attorney adds a filter, the list may appear to “lose” attachments if the view is no longer leveraging the Family Group relational context. This is because Relativity filters act on the records in the active view, and related items such as attachments are included through family grouping behavior rather than because every attachment independently satisfies the filter. The Group Identifier field itself is generally what defines the family relationship, and if it were not populated, the issue would be broader and structural, not just something that appears after adding a filter. The Document Extension field being indexed is unrelated to whether attachments display as family members in the document list .
Therefore, the most plausible and Relativity-aligned explanation is that the Family Group relational view is no longer selected, which prevents all related email attachments from continuing to display together in the filtered Hot Documents view.

Explanation:
The correct answer is B. Replace entire field. Relativity’s Mass Replace documentation lists the available Action options for Mass Replace. These include Replace Entire Field, Append to End, Insert at Beginning, and Search For. Since Replace Entire Field is explicitly named by Relativity as one of the supported Mass Replace actions, it is the correct answer.
The other options are not valid as written. Relativity uses Append to End and Insert at Beginning, not “Insert after.” “Rename field” is a field-administration task, not a Mass Replace action. “Search for sentiment” is unrelated to Mass Replace and not part of the operation’s feature set. This question tests familiarity with the exact Mass Replace UI choices .
Therefore, the correct available option is Replace entire field.