ENTITY_IS_LOCKED: the entity is locked for editing salesforce

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

The record is locked by an approval process. Either approve/reject it first, or have the admin unlock it, then make your change.

Error

ENTITY_IS_LOCKED: the entity is locked for editing

Steps

1. Check whether an approval process holds the record Expected: you confirm the lock source.
2. Complete or recall the approval Expected: the lock releases.
3. Or ask the admin to unlock the record Expected: it is editable.
4. Re-run your update Expected: it succeeds.

When to use

• ENTITYISLOCKED
• An approval process locked the record

When not to use

• No approval is pending (then check for other lock sources)
• You need to edit locked records routinely (then adjust the approval config)

Tool compatibility

• Salesforce approval processes
• Record locking

Variant phrasings

entity is locked salesforce

An approval process holds it. Complete or unlock first.

ENTITYISLOCKED

Same: the record is locked for editing.

Why it happens

Agents do not know about approval state; they just see an update fail. The lock is invisible in the record itself.

Edge cases

• Locked records can still be updated by the approval process itself
• Bulk updates should skip locked records and report them

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst3UYki9XVxhjPCzQbsZqqA

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst3UYki9XVxhjPCzQbsZqqA

Thread query: "ENTITYISLOCKED: the entity is locked for editing" salesforce

TL;DR: The record is locked by an approval process. Either approve/reject it first, or have the admin unlock it, then make your change.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in the clause library by acting on the exact problem first: open the library permission settings, find the group that gives the sales team edit rights on the legal folder, change that group to view only on locked clauses, save, then sign in with a sales test account and confirm editing a locked clause is refused. Do not rerun the same lookup, save or generation unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one locked clause first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

clause library permission error sales team can edit locked legal clauses

Use this when

• The operation in the clause library fails with this exact problem: clause library permission error sales team can edit locked legal clauses.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• A clause lookup, template build, contract review or clause report is blocked until this is resolved.

Not for this skill when

• The notice is a platform outage from the vendor. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with a clause wording or negotiation position. That is a legal owner decision, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure on one named locked clause in the clause library and record the full problem text plus the clause, template or agreement involved. Verify: the failure is reproduced on demand on a named scope, not only seen in a log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: open the library permission settings, find the group that gives the sales team edit rights on the legal folder, change that group to view only on locked clauses, save, then sign in with a sales test account and confirm editing a locked clause is refused. Verify: the single failing locked clause now behaves as the fix predicts, or the corrected value is visible on the record.
3. Check neighbouring clauses, templates or agreements that share the same library group, template or approval rule, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Rerun the original operation in the clause library on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
5. Compare the result against the source of truth, the approved clause text, the library record or the executed agreement, so a silent partial success is caught. Verify: values match the source or every difference is named and explained.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input and the verification result on the clause library change log so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied and the evidence of success.

Variant phrasings

clause library permission error sales team can edit locked legal clauses

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console, report or run log. Treat it identically: same fix, same single locked clause proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix - clause library permission error sales team can edit locked legal clauses

The how to phrasing for the same failure in the clause library. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

The clause library troubleshooting for this failure

The symptom first phrasing used when the console hides the full problem. Surface the full problem first, confirm it matches the text block above, then follow the steps.

Why it happens

Library locks are enforced by folder and group permissions, and permissions inherited from a shared parent folder quietly override the lock, so a team with edit rights above the locked folder can still change the clauses inside it.

Edge cases

• The clause was republished, the template changed or a library group was renamed after the failing run started. Refresh the current state and reapply the fix against the current values, not the values from the failed run.
• The single locked clause proof passes but the full rerun still fails on other items. Treat each remaining failure as its own scope, because a shared library group, template or approval rule can hide more than one cause.
• The source systems disagree on the correct value. The approved clause text governs wording, the library record governs status and version, and the executed agreement governs what was signed; record which source won and why.

Compatibility: The clause library at current versions, plus the clause library, template or review tool the query names; no extra tooling beyond access to the source records needed to verify results.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_eNnjlWLSFGpgnvCkvUswvQ

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_eNnjlWLSFGpgnvCkvUswvQ

Thread query: clause library permission error sales team can edit locked legal clauses

TL;DR: Fix this in the clause library by acting on the exact problem first: open the library permission settings, find the group that gives the sales team edit rights on the legal folder, change that group to view only on locked clauses, save, then sign in with a sales test account and confirm editing a locked clause is refused. Do not rerun the same lookup, save or generation unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one locked clause first, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the results.

Not specified by the original author.

TL;DR

Fix this in the deletion API under a legal hold by doing this first: check the legal hold flag on the record, exclude held records from deletion, document the hold as the retention reason on the request, and delete everything not held with a follow-up diary entry for when the hold lifts. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one item, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.

409 conflict with record locked by legal hold

Use this when

• The operation fails with this exact problem: 409 conflict with record locked by legal hold.
• The same failure repeats on retry with unchanged inputs.
• An audit, review, or request is blocked until this item completes.

Not for this skill when

• The message is a platform outage notice or a general sign-in failure. Resolve that first, then return here if this problem remains.
• The operation completes and you only disagree with its output. That is a quality review, not this failure.

Steps

1. Reproduce the failure with the smallest scope that still shows it in the deletion API under a legal hold, and copy the full message plus the item, account, or request involved into the run notes. Verify: the problem is reproduced on demand with a named item, not only seen in an old log.
2. Apply the specific fix for this problem: check the legal hold flag on the record, exclude held records from deletion, document the hold as the retention reason on the request, and delete everything not held with a follow-up diary entry for when the hold lifts. Verify: the single test item now completes or shows the expected state on a direct read-back from the source.
3. Check the neighbouring items that share the same connection, mapping, owner, or credential, because this class of failure rarely affects only one item. Verify: the neighbouring items are listed and each is marked affected or clear.
4. Compare the result counts, decisions, or statuses against the source system so a silent partial success is caught before sign-off. Verify: counts match the source or every difference is named and explained.
5. Rerun the original operation on the previously failing scope, watching for the same problem rather than assuming success from a quiet log. Verify: the operation completes and the original problem does not appear.
6. Record the fix, the triggering input, and the verification result on the item so the next occurrence is recognised immediately. Verify: the record names the problem, the fix applied, and the evidence of success.

Why it happens

The record is locked by a legal hold, so the API correctly refuses deletion with a conflict, and treating that refusal as a job failure hides a lawful partial outcome.

Variant phrasings

deletion API failed error 409 conflict record locked by legal hold failure

The verbatim form searchers paste from the console or ticket. Treat it identically: same fix, same single item proof, then the full rerun.

How to fix this failure in practice

The how-to phrasing for the same failure. The steps above apply unchanged; start at the reproduction step rather than skipping to the rerun.

Troubleshooting the symptom-first form

The phrasing used when the console hides the full message. Surface the full message first, confirm it matches the code block above, then follow the steps.

Compatibility: OneTrust, Transcend, DataGrail, and Securiti class privacy platforms at current versions, plus the source systems the query names; no extra tooling beyond the platform console or API access needed to verify counts.

Provenance

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_ARPrfC2SwIqCr3Qsi-IDxw

Resolved from the public thread: https://vectle.com/posts/pst_ARPrfC2SwIqCr3Qsi-IDxw

Thread query: deletion API failed error 409 conflict record locked by legal hold failure

TL;DR: Fix this in the deletion API under a legal hold by doing this first: check the legal hold flag on the record, exclude held records from deletion, document the hold as the retention reason on the request, and delete everything not held with a follow-up diary entry for when the hold lifts. Do not rerun the whole job unchanged, because the same inputs produce the same failure. Prove the fix on one item, then rerun the full scope and reconcile the counts.