To achieve a "Customer 360" view where sales and service associates have the context needed for daily interactions, Salesforce is the logical System of Record (SoR) for customer and prospect engagement.
While the ERP remains the master for financial transactions (invoices) and the Marketing tool masters campaign analytics, Salesforce should house the core "Golden Record" of the customer. This is achieved by integrating relevant data from the ERP (order status, invoice history) and Marketing (lead source, email engagement) into Salesforce. This strategy (Option A) empowers associates to log interactions and view history in one place, fulfilling the primary goal of the CRM implementation while avoiding the complexity of a new custom database (Option B) or trying to force prospect-level engagement data into a rigid ERP (Option C).

When an integration callout initiated from a Lightning Web Component (LWC) fails, the architect must distinguish between client-side and server-side security layers. Unlike Apex callouts, which are governed by Remote Site Settings at the server level, LWC requests originate directly from the user's browser. Consequently, they are subject to the browser's Content Security Policy (CSP).
CSP is a security layer that helps detect and mitigate certain types of attacks, including Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) and data injection attacks. It prevents a website from loading content from a third party unless that domain is explicitly safe-listed. If an LWC attempts to connect to an external API endpoint that is not listed in the CSP Trusted Sites in Salesforce Setup, the browser will block the request before it is even sent, often returning a "Refused to connect because it violates the document's Content Security Policy" error. While Cross-Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) is also a browser-level security mechanism, it must be configured on the external server to allow the browser to access its resources; however, the first validation step within the Salesforce environment for a failing LWC callout is ensuring the domain is allowed by the org's CSP.

The Bulk API is designed to process massive datasets by breaking them into smaller batches that Salesforce processes asynchronously. When a batch fails with the "Max CPU time exceeded" error, it typically indicates that the complexity of the operations triggered by the record-such as Apex triggers, Flows, or complex sharing calculations-exceeds the 10,000ms limit within a single transaction.
Reducing the batch size is the standard architectural remedy because it reduces the number of records processed in a single transaction, thereby lowering the total CPU time consumed by those records. However, the architect must consider the impact on the overall throughput and execution time.
When batch sizes are smaller, the total number of batches required to process the same dataset increases. For instance, moving from a batch size of 2,000 to 200 for a 1-million-record dataset increases the number of batches from 500 to 5,000. Each batch carries its own overhead for initialization and finalization within the Salesforce platform. Consequently, while the individual batches are more likely to succeed, the total time required to complete the entire job will increase.
The architect should also be aware of the daily limit on the total number of batches allowed (typically 15,000 in a 24-hour period). While Option C mentions API request limits, the Bulk API is governed more strictly by its own batch limits. Option B is less likely because "parallel mode" naturally manages concurrency. Thus, the primary trade-off the architect must present to the business is a gain in reliability (successful processing) at the cost of total duration (increased sync time).