Even masked payment data may violate logging policies. Rolling back to the last compliant code version, purging logs per retention policy, and altering logger configuration ensures compliance. Verification in Log Center confirms the change, and a security incident workflow documents impact. Option 1 underestimates compliance risk. Option 3 addresses symptoms without preventing recurrence. Option 4 blinds monitoring and increases operational risk. A controlled rollback plus policy-aligned remediation is required.

Option 2 is correct because it separates build from deploy, producing a single immutable artifact per code version and a controlled, repeatable promotion path. CI ensures consistent Node/Webpack versions, linting, and tests before the artifact ever touches an instance. Uploading to Staging via the Deployment API avoids manual UX Studio variability and allows automated smoke tests. Replication from Staging to Production preserves parity and provides auditability. Data as site import XMLs with deterministic ordering prevents partial imports and aligns with replication windows. Option 1 bypasses Staging governance and increases risk. Option 3 invites ordering bugs and activation before verification. Option 4 bloats the repo, risks supply-chain issues, and breaks reproducibility. This process creates a clean artifact trail, reliable rollbacks, and predictable cutovers.

Defaulting via alias to en-US while keeping dedicated, crawlable paths for each locale ensures discoverability. hreflang disambiguates Spanish variants, and avoiding forced redirects for bots prevents cloaking concerns. A visible switcher ensures users can change locales without query parameter hacks. Option 1 can be interpreted as cloaking and harms indexing of alternates. Option 3 makes content invisible to crawlers pre-render and can index the wrong language. Option 4 varies content on the same URL, which confuses canonicalization and hreflang. The chosen approach cleanly separates locales with clear signals.

Defaulting to EUR on the .eu German paths is correct for campaigns and SEO. Allowing a user-initiated CHF switch inside Swiss sections respects merchandising while not breaking canonical signals for DE pages. Session persistence avoids flip-flopping. Option 1 needlessly forces a separate domain when the use case is sectional. Option 3’s IP switching can cause price thrash and poor crawl signals. Option 4’s query parameters without canonical handling create duplicate content. The selected behavior balances clear defaults, intentional overrides, and stable SEO.

Permanent redirects from root to www and HTTP to HTTPS consolidate signals and are SEO best practice. Using aliases for both hosts ensures the platform recognizes incoming hosts and can preserve the full path (including locale) when redirecting. Option 1’s 302s are not appropriate for permanent canonicalization. Option 3’s client-side rewrite is late and unreliable for bots. Option 4 still serves duplicate content at multiple hosts/protocols, relying on canonical only. The chosen configuration provides clean, durable canonicalization without breaking locale landing.

Mapping the promo host as an alias that 301s into the canonical DE paths ensures any links accrued during the campaign are preserved. After the campaign, leaving permanent 301s maintains equity. hreflang continues to live on the destination pages. Option 1 creates duplicate content and poor UX. Option 3’s 302 then NXDOMAIN squanders link equity. Option 4 prevents indexing but also loses promotional authority and can harm user sharing. The selected approach provides a reversible marketing entry point without long-term SEO cost.

Locale-specific URL rules with transliteration produce readable, consistent slugs while keeping paths crawlable. Aliases still determine the landing locale/currency, and 301s from legacy paths avoid duplication. hreflang ensures alternates across languages. Option 1 risks messy percent-encoded URLs and inconsistencies. Option 3 erases language relevance and harms local SEO. Option 4 mixes parameters and slugs, creating weak canonicalization and poor UX. The selected method respects language, SEO, and landing behavior together.

A fast rollback relies on pre-provisioned origins, certificates, and code version dual-running, so the CDN alias and active code version can be flipped quickly. That avoids costly database restores and prevents order loss. DNS TTL reduction helps, but alias re-pointing at the CDN edge is faster and safer than full DNS reversal. Option 1 introduces data loss risk and long RTO due to backup restoration. Option 2 is close, but omits the explicit pause on replication, which can push problematic data to both versions during rollback. Option 4 preserves DNS but blocks revenue and hurts trust; it’s not a rollback. The chosen approach delivers a time-bounded, low-risk backout.

Targeted rollback of the payment integration is safer and faster than taking the whole site down. Switching to a known-good service profile and rotating credentials in the Service Framework fixes the 401 without full DNS backout. If the controller changed, flipping the active code version is part of the minimal rollback. Option 1 is excessive and causes significant downtime. Option 3 damages conversion and introduces operational risk. Option 4 may violate PSP rules and create settlement failures. Focused remediation keeps revenue flowing and aligns with a well-prepared launch runbook.

Feature flags allow selective rollback of high-risk features without undoing the entire release. Turning the flag off reduces timeouts quickly while maintaining other improvements. This also preserves search and index state, minimizing side effects. Option 1 is too disruptive and increases recovery work. Option 2 exposes users to errors and hurts performance. Option 3 likely worsens the bottleneck. A granular backout plus monitoring is the safest path aligned with mature release management.

The presence of 302s suggests temporary redirects, which dilute authority consolidation. Converting to 301s and preserving exact paths gives search engines a clear permanent mapping. Canonical and hreflang must match the destination to avoid conflicting signals. Option 2 doesn’t address redirect semantics and may slow freshness. Option 3 relies on client-side rewrites that bots can ignore. Option 4 is cloaking risk and harms SEO. Fixing redirect status and signals is the correct first step in a post-launch checklist.

The first hour focuses on availability and revenue-path validation. Smoke tests verify core flows, while dashboards confirm latency, error rates, and external dependencies. Option 1 is too heavy and risky to run right after cutover. Option 3 and 4 are important but belong slightly later in the post-production plan. Prioritizing payments, cart, identity, and critical services aligns with a disciplined launch checklist.

Using a pre-launch preferences snapshot keeps the change scoped and reversible. Re-replicating just preferences corrects behavior with minimal impact. Option 1 is dangerous and overbroad. Option 2 risks missing related dependent settings and drifts from controlled replication. Option 4 allows bad orders to continue. Precise rollback using the captured snapshot is the intended safeguard in a launch plan.

Localized rollback avoids collateral damage. If code or service configuration can be segmented by locale, reverting just JP’s PSP profile or code version resolves the checkout issue while preserving other markets. Option 1 penalizes all locales unnecessarily. Option 2 halts revenue entirely in JP. Option 3 might preserve browsing but still loses orders and introduces SEO complexities. A targeted backout plus comms is the correct, minimal-impact response.

Proper cache configuration reduces origin load and improves TTFB. Defining cache keys and vary headers prevents cross-locale leakage while allowing HTML caching where safe, and warming popular pages stabilizes hit rates. Option 1 further reduces effectiveness. Option 3 amplifies origin pressure. Option 4 is costly and treats symptoms, not cause. The checklist should include cache verification and warm-up procedures for post-production stabilization.

Permanent 301s from the old pattern to the new prevent duplication and pass equity. Locale segmentation in rules ensures /en-GB paths map to their GB equivalents. Updating sitemaps accelerates discovery, and hreflang remains on the destination URLs. Option 1 serves duplicates, leaving consolidation to canonical only (weaker). Option 2’s 302s don’t pass clear permanence. Option 4 hides pages from crawling but preserves them in the index for a time, producing soft errors. The alias-based 301 mapping is the robust migration approach.

The manifest is the source of truth; verifying against it reveals missing job definitions or permissions. Restoring from tagged artifacts is a safe, scoped fix, and then rerunning the index build brings search online. Option 1 is disruptive and unnecessary. Option 3 halts revenue without clear benefit. Option 4 risks further failures by adding load. A manifest-driven correction followed by targeted re-execution is the best practice.

System health at launch is best measured by technical indicators across layers: latency percentiles, error rates per controller, cache efficacy, and downstream service health. Synthetic smoke confirms end-to-end flows. Option 1 is useful but lags and can mask technical issues early. Option 3 mixes environments and lacks structured metrics by component. Option 4 uses averages and sessions, which hide tail latency and specific failure domains. The chosen set offers breadth (edge, app, services) and depth (by endpoint/ID), enabling fast diagnosis. It also correlates user-path uptime with infrastructure signals. Cache hit ratio reveals whether origin is overloaded. Service timeouts isolate third-party instability. OCAPI/SCAPI errors highlight headless and app usage issues. This holistic view supports confident go/no-go checks.

Synthetic failures can be configuration drift rather than real defects. Validating credentials, aliases, and locale-specific paths ensures the monitors reflect production reality. Option 1 is orthogonal to checkout success. Option 3 matters for search but rarely causes PSP-specific failures. Option 4 is unrelated to checkout. By checking monitor parity first, you avoid misclassifying noise as a launch incident. If parity is correct and failures persist, you can then escalate to Service Framework logs. This step preserves focus and reduces false positives. It also aligns with a runbook step: validate monitors after cutover. Accurate monitors are essential for ongoing SLO enforcement.

Correctly keyed HTML caching improves performance and protects localization. Warming top routes accelerates stabilization. Option 2 worsens load and latency. Option 3 treats symptoms and delays feedback on cache configuration. Option 4 prevents cache from converging and causes thundering herds. With proper vary headers, you avoid cross-locale bleed. Monitoring QPS and p95 confirms success. This approach is reversible if anomalies appear. It aligns with a standard cache validation checklist. It also lowers error amplification from downstream services. The result is a safer, clearer health signal in minutes.

Divergence between p50 and p99 indicates tail latency, often from specific endpoints or slow dependencies. Endpoint histograms and service timing expose outliers and retry storms. Option 1 is observational and not causal. Option 2 is limited in SFCC and rarely isolative for controller-level slowness. Option 4 is a lagging business metric. The drill-down correlates slow controllers with service calls. It reveals whether timeouts or high retry counts drive tails. It also shows if caching is bypassed. This method supports targeted mitigation (e.g., disable a feature flag). It’s a core health-indicator practice at launch.

Per-client throttling preserves platform health while isolating heavy clients. Encouraging exponential backoff reduces retry storms. Option 1 may exceed safe capacity and hides abuse. Option 3 removes a channel and can break integrations. Option 4 adds origin pressure and worsens conditions. Monitoring per-client quota usage is a standard health indicator. Circuit-breakers protect user flows from cascading failures. This action buys time to analyze long-term scaling. It aligns with least-disruption stabilization. It also protects the error budget for other channels.

A tender-specific failure points to service configuration or endpoint selection. Verifying the Service Framework profile ensures the route targets correct credentials and URLs. Option 1 is unrelated to declines and timeouts. Option 3 concerns search, not payments. Option 4 is too broad; TLS issues would affect more routes. Comparing logs across A/B variants confirms where latency and errors originate. This isolates config drift from platform health. It lets you remediate without full rollback. It’s an expected step in launch health checks. It keeps revenue impact minimal while evidence is gathered.

Tail-latency thresholds with correlation provide a balanced signal. Monitoring fallback rates indicates user impact. Option 1 creates noise and lacks context. Option 3 misses slow failures that degrade UX. Option 4 is a broad performance metric not specific to OMS health. By focusing on p95/p99 and fallbacks, you detect real issues early. Correlating with error rate avoids false positives. This supports SLO-based alerting. It aligns with proactive launch monitoring. It guides targeted scaling and caching changes.

Replication can move configuration. Correlating BM audit logs for identity settings with specific SSO error codes quickly identifies misconfiguration. Option 1 is unrelated to SSO. Option 2 concerns search. Option 4 is lagging and non-diagnostic. Mapping errors to routes confirms whether login flow or callback is failing. This narrows to IDP metadata, certificates, or callback URLs. It’s a standard post-replication health check. Quick identification allows config rollback. It minimizes authentication downtime. It aligns with controlled launch procedures.

Route-pattern and locale analysis reveals whether slugs or aliases are misconfigured. Joining with online flags and sitemap exports distinguishes missing products from routing. Option 1 lacks diagnostics. Option 3 introduces user-visible regressions. Option 4 hides the problem and hurts agility. Validating locale alias/slug mappings is a core health task after launch. It ensures bots and users land correctly. It supports rapid remediation via redirects. It preserves SEO equity. It directly targets the issue domain.

Health isn’t only server-side; front-end regressions matter. RUM with Web Vitals per template and device gives precise impact. Correlating with controller and CDN rules out backend causes. Option 1 is heavy-handed without backend issues. Option 3 can worsen stale content and not fix long tasks. Option 4 waits for user harm. Rolling back the specific bundle is targeted if RUM confirms. This approach embeds UX metrics in launch health. It prevents silent performance debt. It aligns with comprehensive monitoring. It protects conversion before it dips.

JIT migration preserves UX because customers keep using existing credentials without a reset and are upgraded seamlessly. Storing legacy metadata allows the login hook to verify with the old algorithm and then rehash to the platform standard to improve security. Option 1 violates the “no forced reset” requirement and creates deliverability risk. Option 2 leaves legacy hashes indefinitely and fails to meet the platform policy objective. Option 4 introduces unacceptable downtime and operational risk. JIT scales horizontally because only first logins pay the verification cost. It reduces blast radius if issues arise because legacy fields are removed progressively. It is straightforward to roll back by toggling the hook if needed. Auditable logs can confirm rehash completion rates. This pattern is widely used for secure, low-friction cutovers.

Deterministic ID mapping preserves identities for analytics and downstream systems while allowing ingestion of new PIM GUIDs. Loading the master first ensures products exist before locale attributes, minimizing orphan risk. Computing URL keys from legacy values maintains SEO equity. A single reindex reduces load and avoids partial indexing with mismatched locales. Option 1 produces churn in URLs and breaks analytics continuity. Option 3 risks referential issues if locales precede the master, and wastes resources with multiple reindexes. Option 4 harms both tracking and organic rankings even with redirects. Pre-validation avoids runtime failures during replication. The plan also simplifies rollback because mappings are explicit. It ensures consistent product identity across channels and locales.

Using batch imports with suppression flags prevents duplicate communications while honoring historical context. Preserving order numbers (or a reserved prefix strategy) keeps customer recognition and downstream references intact. Throttling imports off-peak respects quota and avoids contention. Reconciling counts before replication ensures correctness. Option 1 risks customer-facing downtime and operational errors. Option 2 introduces cross-environment data access that violates governance and latency expectations. Option 4 loses granular data needed for returns, taxation, and service. Proper sequencing avoids index or cache inconsistencies. Disable only event triggers tied to the import operation, not global emails. Post-import validation and a dry-run in a full-copy sandbox reduce risk.

End-to-end integration tests are vital when two execution models meet. Exercising the SFRA gateway ensures middleware protections work, redirects remain intact, and pipeline behavior still produces the expected side effects. Embedding correlation IDs simplifies log triage across both stacks. Blocking direct pipeline URLs in tests verifies that traffic must traverse the controlled gateway. Option 1 lacks confidence because unit tests won’t catch routing, security, or integration regressions. Option 3 is slow, error-prone, and not repeatable. Option 4 checks only superficial status codes and bypasses the very gateway you rely on for policy enforcement. Robust integration tests deliver the right safety net for mixed pipeline/controller deployments.

The second option addresses privacy, scale, and security within the Job Framework. Chunked queries avoid memory pressure, while deterministic hashing with a securely stored salt creates stable identifiers without exposing raw emails. File splitting by row count eases downstream ingestion, and SFTP with PGP protects data in transit and at rest. Logging only metrics prevents PII leakage. Option 1 is insecure and operationally fragile; emailing large sensitive files is a bad practice and hard-limited. Option 3 circumvents governance and exposes PII to client machines. Option 4 converts batch to chatty real-time calls, risking rate limits and complicating retries. The selected design is compliant, scalable, and auditable.

The second option uses the Job Framework to perform a heavy but isolated batch task. Streaming and read-only queries minimize database contention, while writing outputs to a Custom Object and files gives both API and file-based consumers access. Low Job priority and off-peak scheduling reduce resource contention, and avoiding cache invalidations prevents collateral impact on shoppers. Option 1 misuses controllers and can still collide with traffic or time out. Option 3 increases load and changes historical data, which is undesirable for reconciliation. Option 4 fragments the process and relies on manual steps, losing repeatability and auditability. The chosen configuration is safe, observable, and reproducible.

The reprocessor pattern leverages the Job Framework for targeted, safe retries. Storing failed items with metadata enables reasoned triage, while controlled concurrency and locking prevent overlap and resource contention. Idempotent handlers allow safe re-execution, and archiving payloads ensures future auditability. Option 1 repeats known work unnecessarily and may violate rate limits. Option 3 invites risk and lacks governance, observability, and access controls. Option 4 pushes the problem upstream and can cause duplicates without a clear audit trail. The dedicated reprocessor Job gives repeatability, control, and compliance.

The parameterized single Job keeps one artifact while allowing site-specific behavior. Using Job Parameters allows Business Manager to control paths and windows without code changes, and orchestrating sub-steps per site preserves order and isolation. One master schedule reduces complexity and avoids accidental overlaps. Option 1 explodes maintenance by duplicating Jobs and branches. Option 3 hard-codes behavior, making changes risky and opaque. Option 4 is insecure and bypasses BM governance by putting secrets in URLs and control outside the Job Framework. The parameterized orchestration strikes the right balance between reuse and regional nuance.

The selected option creates a thin compatibility layer that preserves the vendor’s pipeline logic, adds guardrails (HTTPS, CSRF, origin checks), and avoids a risky wholesale rewrite. Using URL Rules keeps routing declarative and auditable, while the proxy controller concentrates security checks and feature flags in one place. Isolation on the cartridge path limits coupling with SFRA controllers and eases rollback. Option 1 adds some protections but mixes redirect flows and can leak state across boundaries if not consistently applied; it also spreads security logic across many endpoints. Option 2 is high risk and time-boxed conversion efforts often miss edge cases, jeopardizing checkout. Option 4 depends on internal pipeline invocation patterns that are deprecated and brittle; it bypasses Business Manager routing and weakens observability. The compatibility cartridge plus URL mapping gives a controlled, incremental integration path with clear security gates and minimal vendor code churn.

The clearest markers of pipeline usage are the existence of .pipeline XML files, pipelet references, and Business Manager URL Rules pointing to pipeline start nodes. These artifacts are unique to the legacy Pipeline architecture. Option 2 actually signals SFRA controllers: routes via server.get/post and middleware are a hallmark of the controller model. Option 3 is orthogonal; using modern front-end tooling tells you little about server-side architecture. Option 4 indicates a back-office or headless integration focus but not a storefront implementation pattern. The correct choice ties directly to the legacy execution model (pipelines, pipelets, and dictionaries) and the routing method older packages depend on, which is precisely what you must identify before proposing controller-based integration strategies.

The chosen option maintains vendor upgradability and minimizes churn by keeping the pipeline intact but fronting it with an SFRA route for security and flow control. Validating CSRF/HTTPS in the SFRA layer ensures consistent protections and lets you control when and how the pipeline is reached. URL Rules keep routing configuration clean, and redirect/return patterns preserve the user journey while you progressively wrap content with SFRA templates. Option 1 couples runtime to an HTTP hop, losing session context and complicating error handling. Option 2 weakens security by dropping CSRF and leaks implementation details to the client. Option 4 may be ideal eventually, but it contradicts the “minimal change, preserve upgrade path” constraint and significantly increases project risk. Therefore, a guarded SFRA gateway plus URL mapping is the pragmatic step toward coexistence.

Enforcing CSRF in the SFRA layer lets you apply standardized, supported protections (csrfProtection) while retaining the pipeline’s core review logic. Validating on the controller boundary, then forwarding via a URL Rule with session context intact, centralizes security and keeps vendor code unchanged. Option 1 (referrer checks) is not a robust CSRF defense and is easy to spoof. Option 3 reinvents CSRF mechanisms in a legacy pipelet, duplicating effort and creating maintenance risk. Option 4 weakens security and risks leaking sensitive data through URLs; GET is inappropriate for state-changing actions. The controller-fronted pattern balances compliance demands with backward compatibility and reduces the surface of ad-hoc security code in legacy components.

A unified correlation ID across both execution models is essential for end-to-end tracing. Creating the ID in a base SFRA middleware ensures it exists at request entry; propagating it to pipelines via session or redirect preserves continuity. Normalizing log prefixes in both controllers and custom pipelets makes searches deterministic, and exposing the ID in error pages empowers support to retrieve traces. Option 1 floods logs and lacks deterministic correlation. Option 3 silences half the stack, breaking traceability at the boundary. Option 4 adds headers but doesn’t guarantee the ID reaches application logs unless code reads and uses it; relying on proxies alone leaves gaps. The standardized middleware-plus-log-convention approach integrates cleanly with Log Center and supports effective diagnostics.

An adapter at the controller boundary lets you convert SFRA form structures into the form dictionary the vendor pipeline expects, preserving compatibility while keeping the rest of the site on SFRA patterns. Forwarding via URL Rules maintains session continuity, and mapping results back to SFRA models isolates differences. Option 2 changes the payload shape the pipeline expects and presumes JSON support that legacy code may not have. Option 3 pollutes the broader site with legacy patterns and raises the risk of regressions and maintenance overhead. Option 4 introduces cross-domain session complexity and cart synchronization challenges unnecessarily. The adapter-and-forward approach respects vendor contracts and keeps architectural seams clean.

Targeted enablement through URL Rules for just the needed pipeline endpoints minimizes surface area and upgrade risk. A façade/controller wrapper centralizes rate limiting and caching policies, so the legacy endpoint is invoked under your operational controls. This approach avoids pulling in unwanted features and lets SFRA retain ownership of the main search flows. Option 1 increases coupling and can override SFRA behavior broadly. Option 3 assumes templates alone resolve architectural mismatches, but the logic remains pipeline-bound. Option 4 duplicates vendor code, hindering upgrades and risking functional drift. The façade-plus-URL-Rule pattern gives precision, control, and an upgrade-friendly seam.

Centralizing enforcement in controller gateways ensures uniform HTTPS, auth, and CSRF policies while avoiding the brittle work of touching numerous pipeline files. URL Rules can be constrained to deny direct access, funneling requests through secured SFRA routes. Option 1 is error-prone and hard to audit. Option 3 weakens zero-trust posture and risks sensitive data traversing internal links unencrypted. Option 4 overestimates site preferences; pipelines may not uniformly inherit POST protections, and exceptions often exist. Controller-fronted enforcement with explicit middleware creates a reliable, testable security boundary that works across both architectures.

The strangler-fig approach enables controlled migration with observability. Keeping both paths initially allows comparison, and using feature flags plus metrics lets you switch cohorts methodically. Starting with 301s for low-risk segments preserves SEO and user bookmarks, while instrumented telemetry shows when it is safe to retire pipelines. Option 1 is disruptive and risks breaking user journeys. Option 2’s blanket 302 lacks permanence and can hurt SEO and caching behavior; also it removes the ability to regress selectively. Option 4 doubles maintenance indefinitely and increases defect probability. The measured strangler plan balances user impact, SEO, and technical safety.

Composition via middleware is the SFRA pattern; it avoids fragile inheritance chains and makes the seam to legacy code explicit and testable. Guarding the redirect to the pipeline with security middleware maintains a clean boundary, and helpers prevent controller bloat. Option 1 entrenches a brittle inheritance model and spreads legacy coupling. Option 3 confuses concerns—OCAPI is not a drop-in replacement for pipeline logic and may change payloads and limits. Option 4 mixes control flow into templates, which is an anti-pattern and harms maintainability. The refactor towards composition, helpers, and guarded URL Rule integration aligns with SFRA best practices and clarifies upgrade pathways.

The orchestrator Job is a classic use of the Job Framework for dependency management. Polling with a bounded wait prevents indefinite hangs, while conditional sub-job launches keep logic modular. Persisting orchestration state in a Custom Object enables transparency and recovery. Option 1 pushes coordination onto humans and risks missed SLAs. Option 3 produces partial data integrity because products may refer to missing categories. Option 4 changes the integration contract to real-time without addressing readiness or rate-limit concerns, and it’s unnecessary when batch suffices. Thus, a wait-with-timeout orchestrator is the pragmatic, controllable solution.

The Service Framework is the productized real-time mechanism in SFCC for outbound HTTP/SOAP, giving standardized timeouts, retries, credential binding, and environment profiles. Implementing createRequest centralizes headers and idempotency, while parseResponse normalizes the API payload. filterLogMessage allows masking of PII so logs remain compliant. Profiles let you switch between live and mock behavior without code changes using mockCall. Option 1 re-implements features Service Framework already provides and spreads networking logic across controllers, increasing risk. Option 2 misuses OCAPI (intended for platform APIs) as a general reverse proxy, complicating auth and throttling. Option 3 is batch, which cannot meet a 700 ms synchronous checkout requirement. The selected approach aligns with SFCC best practices, keeps concerns in service definitions, and supports graceful handling of 429s through built-in retry plus idempotency headers.

The Service Framework supports SOAP services that can be bound to credentials including client certificates, which is the correct way to implement mutual TLS. Using createRequest constructs the SOAP message reliably and parseResponse can decode base64 content and map faults to meaningful errors. A mock profile allows safe lower-environment testing without contacting the carrier. Option 1 misuses HTTP Service and cannot implement true mutual TLS through headers. Option 3 is batch and risks stale/missing labels at confirmation time. Option 4 exposes the carrier endpoint to the browser, leaking credentials and increasing attack surface. The correct design leverages the SOAP Service type and credential store so security and structure live in Business Manager rather than ad-hoc code.

Real-time UX needs a bounded timeout and resiliency. The Service Framework allows precise timeout and retry settings and returns availability states you can use to trigger fallbacks. A short timeout ensures the page stays responsive; a small retry count handles transient issues without overloading the provider. Serving a local cached fallback preserves UX. Redacting via filterLogMessage and logging correlation IDs produce actionable telemetry without exposing PII. Option 1 bypasses server protections and secrets management, creating security and observability gaps. Option 2 increases tail latency and logs sensitive data, harming compliance. Option 4 is purely batch and cannot reflect latest terms or respond to personalized contexts. The selected design balances performance, reliability, and compliance using Service Framework capabilities.

The Service Framework integrates directly with the Credential store so secrets are not embedded in code. Binding a Credential per environment (via service profiles) simplifies rotation and governance. In createRequest, headers can be composed using the credential values, and filterLogMessage prevents keys from appearing in logs. Option 1 places secrets in code repositories and base64 is not encryption. Option 3 relocates secrets to a data table without proper key management or audit trails. Option 4 uses preferences not intended for sensitive key material and risks accidental exposure. The selected design keeps secrets in the right control plane and aligns with auditing and rotation best practices.

Parsing and error normalization belong inside the service definition so controllers receive consistent structures regardless of provider behavior. parseResponse is designed to translate HTTP responses into application-level results and can defend against malformed JSON, returning typed error results while preserving status via svc.getStatus(). Controllers become simpler and more robust, and sanitized logs can still include correlation IDs. Option 1 spreads parsing logic and increases duplication and crash risk. Option 3 hides real conditions and is unsuitable for production maintenance windows. Option 4 relies on generic error handling, producing poor UX and limited context for remediation. The chosen pattern leverages Service Framework hooks to provide predictable, safe integration boundaries.

Service profiles are the intended mechanism to vary behavior per environment for the same service definition. Implementing mockCall enables deterministic responses in CI and dev, while binding live credentials for higher environments keeps configuration out of code. Controllers remain unchanged and rely on the ServiceRegistry for behavior. Option 1 puts environment logic in code and risks drift. Option 3 centralizes a single variable but still requires branching in controllers and does not provide full mock behavior. Option 4 is brittle and mixes deployment tasks with runtime configuration. Profiles and mockCall give clean separation and repeatable testing.

Computing the signature inside createRequest encapsulates request construction concerns, guarantees the header is present for every call, and keeps the secret in the Credential store. This avoids duplication and prevents leakage into controllers or the client. Option 1 spreads sensitive logic and stores secrets in preferences rather than credentials. Option 3 exposes the secret to end users and undermines security. Option 4 overreaches OCAPI hook scope and couples unrelated concerns. The createRequest location keeps the integration cohesive and adheres to Service Framework responsibilities.

The Service Framework supports response caching at the service layer, allowing short-lived caches keyed by request characteristics. Including SKU, currency, and locale in the cache key prevents cross-context contamination. This reduces outbound calls while staying near real time. Option 1 caches full HTML and risks serving stale or personalized content incorrectly. Option 3 stores per-shopper data and does not de-duplicate across users, missing the cost objective. Option 4 is batch and cannot respond to immediate price changes. Service-level caching is designed for exactly this micro-TTL scenario.

The Service Framework supports retry configuration and returns status codes indicating availability problems. Setting a tight timeout and two retries meets the one-second window. parseResponse can convert 503s into a consistent result, and controllers can act on that status to soft-fail and flag the order. Option 1 embeds timing logic in controllers and risks blocking the request thread. Option 3 masks real-world failures and could lead to chargebacks. Option 4 changes the business process by moving a required real-time check out of the transaction. The selected solution keeps resilience policies in the service and business decisions in controllers.

The Service Framework offers filterLogMessage to sanitize request/response logs, allowing redaction of headers and body fields while keeping operational metadata. This enables effective debugging with correlation IDs without exposing PII or secrets. Option 1 reduces visibility and does not guarantee safety if lower levels are enabled elsewhere. Option 3 is reactive and unreliable. Option 4 eliminates observability, which harms operations and incident response. Redaction at the service layer is the correct, proactive mechanism aligned with governance requirements.

The correct approach is domain-level aliases that directly route hosts to the intended site/locale/currency combination and permanent (301) redirects from legacy paths. This preserves link equity, prevents duplicate content, and reliably lands users on GBP. hreflang communicates alternates between US and UK to search engines. Option 1 overuses query parameters and 302s, which are not ideal for permanent locale routing and are weak for SEO consolidation. Option 2’s automatic 302 based on Accept-Language can confuse bots and cause crawling loops; it’s also not a durable mapping. Option 4 lacks redirect consolidation, leaving duplicate content across domains. The chosen design balances SEO canonicalization with precise host?site?locale routing and currency defaults.

Separate host aliases per market, each with its default locale and currency, ensure URLs are market-specific and indexed appropriately. 301s consolidate legacy or cross-market paths to the correct host while hreflang clarifies FR-FR vs FR-CA alternates. Option 1 centralizes on one domain and relies on cookies, which breaks shareable URLs and confuses crawlers. Option 3 mixes a single canonical with 302s, diluting market signals. Option 4’s query params create duplicates and weak canonicalization. The selected plan provides clean, market-scoped URLs with correct currency landing and strong SEO signals.

A 301 redirect from the retired .co.uk to canonical .com/en-GB paths preserves link equity and lands shoppers on GBP pages, while hreflang on the destination reinforces locale targeting. Option 1’s 302 is non-permanent and suboptimal for equity consolidation. Option 2’s JS redirect delays and risks bots not following. Option 4 wastes accrued authority and harms user experience. The alias-based 301 mapping is the cleanest SEO and landing solution without running a full additional site.

An alias default sets the safe baseline (AUD) for direct/organic visits, while explicit overrides in URL should be respected to meet campaign intents. Session persistence prevents oscillation. Canonical should reflect the default pricing page; alternate/parameterized views can carry self-referential canonicals or noindex if necessary. Option 1 erases intentional USD contexts and harms campaign UX. Option 3 uses temporary redirects that still disrupt explicit requests and provide unclear SEO signals. Option 4’s Accept-Language is not a currency control and can misalign. The selected approach balances SEO defaulting with intentional overrides.