The card layout uses an integration Procedure as a data source. Which JSON structure best supports this layout?

The card layout uses an integration Procedure as a data source. Which JSON structure best supports this layout?

• A. { "Case":[ { "Number":"324423423423", "Subject":"Cannot tack our order" }, { "Number":"324423423423", "Subject":"Cannot tack our order" } ], "Contact":{"Name":"Lanne Tomlin", "Phone":"324242324" }}
• B. { "Case":[ { "Number":"324423423423", "Subject":"Cannot tack our order" }, { "Number":"324423423423", "Subject":"Cannot tack our order" } ], "ContactName":"Lanne Tomlin", "ContactPhone":"324242324" }
• C. [ { "Contact":{ "Name":"Lanne Tomlin", "Phone":"324242324" }, "CaseNumber":"324423423423", "CaseSubject":"Cannot tack our order" } ]
• D. <root> <Case> ... </Case> </root>

Answer: (A)

In a card layout that pulls data from an Integration Procedure, the data shape should naturally separate repeating rows from single, related details. Repeating items are provided as an array of objects, while related single-valued fields are grouped under their own object so the layout can bind to both sections cleanly. The best structure matches this pattern: a top-level Case array where each item has Number and Subject, plus a Contact object containing Name and Phone. This lets the card render multiple case entries as a list and show the contact details in a separate block without flattening everything into one level. The other options fall short for typical card binding. Flattening contact fields into separate top-level properties (as in the second choice) can complicate binding a distinct contact section. Using a top-level array with a single object (as in the third choice) doesn’t clearly represent multiple cases as a reusable collection. The last option uses XML instead of JSON, which isn’t compatible with a JSON-based Integration Procedure data source.

In a card layout that pulls data from an Integration Procedure, the data shape should naturally separate repeating rows from single, related details. Repeating items are provided as an array of objects, while related single-valued fields are grouped under their own object so the layout can bind to both sections cleanly.

The best structure matches this pattern: a top-level Case array where each item has Number and Subject, plus a Contact object containing Name and Phone. This lets the card render multiple case entries as a list and show the contact details in a separate block without flattening everything into one level.

The other options fall short for typical card binding. Flattening contact fields into separate top-level properties (as in the second choice) can complicate binding a distinct contact section. Using a top-level array with a single object (as in the third choice) doesn’t clearly represent multiple cases as a reusable collection. The last option uses XML instead of JSON, which isn’t compatible with a JSON-based Integration Procedure data source.