What the documents look like
Wholesale stall trading is more fragmented than regional dealer replenishment. It relies on on-site bargaining and consignment shipping, and the working records arrive daily and per order: purchase notes, handwritten sales slips, stall lease contracts, and payment receipts. Market quotations, stall inventory, WeChat payments, and logistics consignment notes sit in separate places, so order fulfilment and after-sales question handling has to work from documents that were never designed as a single system.
This page covers one step of that work: sharing and embedding for order fulfilment and after-sales question handling. The materials in scope are purchase notes, handwritten sales slips, stall lease contracts, and payment receipts. A share link only solves the access entry point. The link identifier itself does not constitute business authorization, and a successful identity verification result only means the interface check passed.
Constraints at the shared access step
The no-login window is created under the application's publish channel, and the full system-generated link is copied for use. The link identifier cannot be treated as business authorization. Expiry time and QPM are set according to the intended scope of use and checked against the actual version; QPM means the maximum number of visits per user per minute. The points cap is checked against the usage limit of the share entry and the cost attribution, and some parameters are restricted by version. Identity verification is limited to the commercial edition scope and is checked against the official interface response of success status and uid. The anonymous local identifier depends on the same device and the same browser; cross-device records require separately designed identity and session management.
Hypothetical exercise sample: a stall owner plans to send a no-login share link to a buyer to check a payment receipt against a handwritten sales slip. The source text provided for checking is: "Sales slip number A-001, dated 10 May 2024; payment receipt number S-001, amount outstanding; stall lease contract number Z-001, valid until 30 April 2025." The proposed sentence is: "This link allows viewing and confirming that the receipt for A-001 has been settled."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Stall after-sales check entry | Used only for record display; compared with the purpose of the proposed sentence |
| Expiry time | 10 June 2024 | Hypothetical starting point; compared with the material date of 10 May 2024 for valid range |
| QPM | 10 visits per user per minute | Hypothetical starting point; compared with the official QPM definition, not treated as a default value |
| Points cap | Hypothetical starting point of 5000 | Compared with the usage limit of the share entry, not treated as an official default |
| Identity verification | Root address filled in | Checked against the official interface response of success and uid, within the commercial edition scope |
| View full reference text | Enabled for checking | Compared with the scope of the source material; not extended into authorization |
Three common errors
- Treating the share link identifier as business authorization. The input is the link and the proposed sentence; the comparison is whether the link carries authorization meaning; the observable result is that the link only solves the access entry point, and the "has been settled" wording in the proposed sentence still lacks evidence.
- Treating a passed identity verification as payment settlement. The input is the interface response of success and uid; the comparison is whether the uid corresponds to the same field as the material subject; the observable result is that a successful check does not mean the receipt has been settled.
- Treating the anonymous local identifier as a guarantee of cross-device records. The input is the same-device, same-browser condition; the comparison is the cross-device scenario; the observable result is that records may be lost, and identity and session management need separate design.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source text and the proposed sentence. Compare whether the proposed sentence exceeds the scope of the material. The observable result is that "has been settled" is not supported, and the evidence gap should be recorded.
- Input the identity verification interface response of success and uid. Compare the uid format and length limit. The observable result is that only a compliant format allows continuation, and a non-compliant format returns the Invalid UID error.
- Input a paper input of an empty result []. Compare whether the downstream design handles it. The observable result is that only the downstream design is checked; no claim is made that a fictional rule search must return [].