Get real C_S4TM_2601 exam questions for better preparation

A regional mobile kiosk distributor is defining SAP S/4HANA Transportation Management scope for planned hub replenishment and short-notice kiosk removal shipments. The first release must support freight order planning, execution visibility, and later settlement for planned replenishment. Kiosk removals still depend on customer-site authorization, unclear dismantling responsibility, and variable carrier confirmation that have not been validated in the target process.
The account operations lead wants removals included immediately because they are visible in customer exception reporting. The transportation consultant warns that unclear execution ownership could create planning exceptions and settlement disputes. The constraint is to deliver a stable first release while preserving kiosk removals as a later controlled transition scope.
Which blueprinting decision best supports the rollout constraint?
Response:

• A. Activate planned hub replenishment first and define kiosk removals as later-wave scope after authorization, dismantling ownership, and carrier confirmation are validated.
• B. Include kiosk removals immediately so customer exception reporting captures all visible transportation demand.
• C. Configure freight settlement for kiosk removals first so cost postings determine whether the flow is operationally ready.
• D. Delay planned hub replenishment until kiosk removals can use the same transportation and settlement model.

CHALLENGE 3 - Carrier Agreement Rates and Stop-Based Charges
Carrier route rates calculate correctly for several freight orders, but additional stop-based charges are missing for some dealer routes. The missing charges occur mainly on freight orders created after manual delivery additions.
What should the team validate next?
Response:

• A. Whether direct dealer deliveries should be excluded from charge calculation because their route rates already calculate.
• B. Whether stop-based charge conditions depend on the freight order structure created from the route grouping process.
• C. Whether all freight settlement documents should be created manually until the first settlement cycle is complete.
• D. Whether dealer ship-to locations should be removed from route planning to simplify carrier rate calculation.

CHALLENGE 2 - Service Expectation Preservation in Freight Orders
Two freight orders are created for controlled-temperature deliveries. One preserves delivery-window and handling expectations from freight unit preparation, while the manually adjusted one requires customer service to recheck the promised delivery date.
Which factor should drive the next validation?
Response:

• A. Whether both freight orders can later receive any calculated carrier charge.
• B. Whether freight unit attributes remain connected to freight order grouping and carrier release preparation.
• C. Whether customer service can keep a spreadsheet of manual delivery-date confirmations.
• D. Whether event tracking can be skipped when the carrier already accepted the shipment.

CHALLENGE 1 - Maintenance Priority Attributes in Planning Input
Field operations wants to accept UAT if planners can manually mark emergency priority during planning. Warehouse operations argues that priority and container data should be present before kits are released for dispatch.
Which decision best supports the UAT objective?
Response:

• A. Validate emergency premiums first because settlement determines whether warehouse dispatch should proceed.
• B. Remove priority attributes from freight units and manage emergency routing only through carrier instructions.
• C. Require evidence that priority and container attributes are present in freight units before dispatch preparation and freight order creation.
• D. Accept manual priority marking because UAT only needs to prove that freight orders can eventually be created.

A beverage wholesaler is validating SAP S/4HANA Transportation Management for intercompany replenishment from a production plant to regional distribution centers. Transportation lanes are maintained, and the distribution centers exist as transportation locations. During testing, some replenishment deliveries become transportation-relevant, but deliveries from one plant are excluded even though the route appears active.
The implementation team observes that the plant was recently converted from a legacy distribution point and uses a different organizational assignment than the other plants. The constraint is to correct replenishment transportation relevance only for the intended plant-to-distribution-center flow without activating unrelated internal movements.
Which action best addresses the exclusion?
Response:

• A. Create a duplicate transportation lane for the excluded plant so the delivery can find an alternate route during relevance determination.
• B. Manually create freight units for the excluded deliveries until all converted plant assignments are harmonized.
• C. Activate transportation relevance for all internal movements so replenishment deliveries from every plant are included.
• D. Correct the relevant organizational and transportation relevance assignment for the affected replenishment flow, then validate it against the existing lane and location setup.