The following statement is an example of a dry, unattractive, and unengaging way of presenting a solution:
"I will do the credit check via an APEX callout."
The judges are acting as CXOs representing the scenario’s client company. You are supposed to guide them and avoid dry answers to their questions. To help them, you need to continue with your presentation, point out or mention the requirement first, then explain your proposed solution.
For example, your response could be rephrased like so:
“To fulfill this requirement, I will implement a Lightning component with a button to submit the customer account for a credit check. The Lightning component will have an APEX controller. I propose using the remote process invocation request and reply integration pattern. The controller will use a callout to invoke a web service exposed by MuleSoft. I will use named credentials to authenticate to the web service. Authentication will occur using the OAuth 2.0 JWT token flow, and the integration channel will be protected using two-way TLS. Once the MuleSoft web service is invoked, MuleSoft will orchestrate the call to the credit check provider, get the result back, and return it to the Lightning component’s controller. The component will then display the result to the user.”
This demonstrates clarity, confidence, and architectural ownership – traits the CTA judges are trained to look for.
Want to master the thinking, communication, and real-world scenarios behind CTA-level design? Explore the full book here.