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 .

The correct answer is C. You cannot use Audit to revert coding decisions on required fields back to a null state. Relativity’s official Audit documentation states that certain field types, including single choice , can be reverted. However, it also explicitly states that you cannot revert a required field if doing so would return that field to a blank null value . That is exactly what this scenario describes: the field was changed from null to Responsive, and reverting would restore it to null. If the field is required, Relativity blocks that revert because required fields cannot be blank.

This means option A is incorrect because single-choice fields can be reverted in Audit. Option B is also incorrect because Relativity supports both individual and mass revert workflows depending on the situation. Option D is not the documented reason for the failure. The controlling issue is the required-field constraint. From an RCA perspective, this is a subtle but important administrative behavior: the Audit system can revert field changes, but only where the resulting value remains valid under Relativity’s field rules. If the revert would violate a field’s required setting, the system will not allow it. Therefore, the most accurate reason is that Audit cannot revert the value because the revert would place a required field back into a null state .

The correct answer is C. Extracted text, FileExtension, and FileName. Relativity’s official Simple File Upload documentation includes a Replacing documents section that explicitly lists the metadata fields overwritten when a document is replaced with another document sharing the same control number. The overwritten fields include FileName , FileSize , FileExtension , Extracted Text , Supported By Viewer , Relativity Native Type , Has Native , and certain last-modified system fields.

Among the answer choices, option C is the only one composed entirely of fields that Relativity explicitly says are overwritten in this workflow. Option A is incorrect because Sort Date is not one of the documented overwritten fields. Option B is incorrect because Group Identifier is not listed as being overwritten. Option D is incorrect because Page Count is not listed in the documented overwritten fields for replacing a document via this workflow.

This is an important Data loading administration detail because document replacement changes core file metadata tied to the uploaded replacement native, including its filename and extension, while preserving the document identity through the shared control number. Therefore, the correct option is C. Extracted text, FileExtension, and FileName .

The correct answer is A. Relativity Compare . Relativity’s official documentation on using near duplicate analysis in review states that the Relativity Compare function can compare two documents to assess their similarities and differences . This is the exact activity described in the question and is directly relevant to working within a textual near duplicate group, where reviewers often need to determine how one member differs from the principal document or from another near duplicate in the set.

The other options do not match that purpose. Image QC is used for image quality control workflows, not for textual comparison of document content. Document View Overlay is not the standard Relativity tool documented for assessing textual differences between near duplicates. Similar Documents View helps surface conceptually or textually related material, but it is not the dedicated side-by-side comparison tool Relativity identifies for evaluating differences. From a Structured Analytics perspective, this distinction matters because near duplicate analysis groups similar records together, but the actual determination of differences between two specific documents is handled through the comparison function. Therefore, when assessing differences within a textual near duplicate group, the correct tool is Relativity Compare .