What the documents look like
Channel diversion work concerns regional and price order, not rebate amounts. The main materials come from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records, and market inspections. Day-to-day documents include diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices, and investigation photographs. The most time-consuming steps are tracing goods source codes, comparing low-price shops, and executing penalties.
For the sharing and embedding step, these materials define the input boundary. A share link carries a dialogue entry point only; the link identifier does not constitute business authorization. Whether a complaint form, penalty notice, or investigation photograph may enter the dialogue context depends on whether it has been placed into the target retrieval library or an explicit manual input scope. Retrieval and similarity do not carry permission or entity-isolation duties, and retrieval itself is not authorization.
Hypothetical drill sample
The following is a hypothetical drill sample. It does not refer to any real customer or real record.
Material text (hypothetical): "Complaint form number TS-2026-0312. The complained party is Distributor A in the East China region. The anti-counterfeit code range involved is A-1001 to A-1050. Market inspection date is March 10, 2026, and an e-commerce shop was found selling below the regional guide price. The penalty notice has not been issued. Three investigation photographs are archived."
Draft handover request (hypothetical): Please embed the above complaint form, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notice, and investigation photographs into an after-sales question-and-answer dialogue through a share link, and release the distributor query in the pre-dialogue verification interface.
Point to be judged: The penalty notice has not been issued, and the materials contain no authorization release clause. Whether the share link's authToken has been appended and whether the identity verification root address has been configured are both unsupported items and require a recorded evidence gap.
Constraints at the shared access step
The no-login window is created from the publishing channel and the system-generated full link is copied. The link identifier locates the dialogue entry point. It cannot serve as a credential for distributor identity, regional affiliation, or penalty execution authority. Expiration time and QPM are set according to the usage scope and checked against the actual version; QPM means the maximum number of visits per user per minute. The point cap constrains billing data generated by the share entry, and some parameters are limited by version. Identity verification is limited to the commercial edition scope, and release is decided by the official interface returning success and uid; uid must be a string that does not contain "|", "/", or "\" and does not exceed 255 bytes, otherwise the Invalid UID error is returned. Dialogue records depend on localId in the same device and same browser, and only records from the past 30 days, 20 items, may be pulled; cross-device records require separate identity and session management design.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists only officially documented settings or implementation check items related to this page's feature and primary task. The values are hypothetical trial starting points for this drill, used to compare against the link's actual configured values, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point and reason | Check method |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Enter "diversion after-sales Q&A entry", used only for record display | View the name in the publishing channel and check it matches the record |
| Expiration time | Set to one week after the sample complaint form is archived, compared with the material date range | Open the link and check whether it is usable within the valid period |
| QPM | Hypothetical starting point of 10 visits per user per minute, compared with concurrent access records | Observe the access return when this value is exceeded |
| Point cap | Hypothetical starting point covering the sample dialogue volume, compared with the team to which costs belong | Check whether billing data generated by the link exceeds the cap |
| Identity verification | Enter the root address, not the full path; decide by the POST return of success and uid | Append authToken to the link and check the returned uid format |
| Real-time running status | Choose according to whether nodes are displayed, compared with the after-sales Q&A scenario | Open the dialogue and check the node display status |
Three common errors
- Treating the share link identifier as a distributor authorization credential. The input is the link identifier, the comparison object is the distributor subject and regional scope in the complaint form, and the observable result is that the link opening does not mean the distributor has been authorized to query or execute a penalty.
- Treating the identity verification interface returning success as the penalty notice having been issued. The input is the verification request, the comparison object is the issuance status of the penalty notice, and the observable result is that success only indicates identity verification passed, while an unissued penalty notice remains an unsupported item.
- Treating retrieval relevance as permission or entity filtering. The input is the retrieval query, the comparison object is the record scope in the target library, and the observable result is that a similarity score does not exclude unrelated business or unauthorized records, and retrieval does not carry authorization duties.
How to verify the setup
- Use the hypothetical sample's draft handover request as input, compare whether the share link has authToken appended and whether the identity verification root address is configured, and observe that when either is missing the link shows an identity error. The condition is met when identity verification returns success and uid per the official interface.
- Use the hypothetical sample's material text as input, compare the complaint form number, anti-counterfeit code range, inspection date, and penalty notice issuance status, and observe that when the penalty notice is unissued, penalty-execution dialogue must not be released. The condition is met when the material status and the dialogue release scope are consistent.
- Use the paper input [] representing an empty-result reception as input, compare whether the downstream dialogue design declares output when there is no reference, and observe that on empty reference the design output is followed. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. The condition is met when the downstream design explicitly handles empty references.