The correct answer is B. Name conflicts: Rename or map Fields. Relativity's Troubleshooting application installation errors documentation explains that for Name conflicts , the available resolution options include Rename and Map Field . The page specifically instructs admins to use the Resolve Errors drop-down and choose either Rename or Map Field to address the conflicting artifact during application installation.
The other choices are inconsistent with the documentation. For locking conflicts , Relativity says you can resolve them by selecting the Unlock checkbox, so option A is incorrect. For restricted file types , the documented resolution is to remove the external resource from the application and re-install , not simply
"run a re-install," so option D is incomplete and inaccurate. Option C is also too vague and not one of the documented named error-resolution pairings. Therefore, the correct expected application installation error and solution is Name conflicts: Rename or map Fields

The correct answer is C. #pear . Relativity's Using dtSearch syntax options documentation states that phonic searching uses the pound sign (#) in front of a word. The documentation gives the exact example that a phonic search for pear also finds pair and pare , which directly matches the question.
The other choices represent different or invalid syntax. pear* is a wildcard-based pattern, not a phonic search.
The apostrophe form is not the documented phonic operator, and $pear is not the phonic syntax in Relativity dtSearch. Therefore, the correct syntax for a phonic search returning pair and pare is #pear .

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 .

The correct answer is B. Add the OCR text field as the first field in the Text Precedence window.
Relativity's OCR-on-redacted-production guidance explains that to produce only non-redacted text, you must use Text Precedence during export, and it specifically warns not to add the Extracted Text field to the exported field list because doing so can result in producing redacted text. It also explains that production export can use ordered text fields so Relativity pulls text from the highest-priority populated field.
In this workflow, the OCR text generated from the redacted production images is the field that reflects the redacted-visible text appropriately for export. By placing the OCR text field first in Text Precedence, Relativity uses that OCR-derived text before falling back to other long-text fields. Option A is incorrect because prioritizing Extracted Text risks exporting the original underlying text rather than the intended redacted-visible text. Options C and D are also incorrect because the guidance is to control output through Text Precedence , not by simply adding those fields to the exported field list; in fact, Relativity explicitly warns against adding Extracted Text to the exported list for this use case. Therefore, the correct step is to put the OCR text field first in Text Precedence .

The correct answer is B. A reviewer was originally part of the workspace and coded documents, but has since been removed from the workspace. Relativity's official Review Center documentation explains that when documents were coded by reviewers who are not part of the current Relativity instance , those reviewers can appear in charts and tables as "Unknown User 1," "Unknown User 2," and so on. The documentation specifically notes that this can happen if a reviewer was removed from the workspace or if the workspace was archived and restored into a different instance. That directly supports option B.
The other options do not match Relativity's documented explanation. Losing permission to code is not the stated reason for the "Unknown User" label. Likewise, an unprepared project is a separate project-state issue and does not explain why specific prior coding activity would be attributed to an anonymous placeholder. An error requiring queue re-preparation is also not the documented cause of this naming behavior. From a case administration perspective, this is an important concept because administrators often manage workspace users, permissions, and lifecycle changes over time. If prior reviewers are removed, their historical coding may still appear in analytics or project monitoring views, but the user identity may no longer resolve normally. In that circumstance, Review Center surfaces those coding records under a label such as
"Unknown User 1."