What the documents look like
Closure settlement for a chain store draws on POS inventory, the fixed-asset system, lease contracts and financial ledgers. The daily documents are the closure approval, inventory clearance form, lease termination agreement and asset count sheet. Chain operations, finance, legal and the landlord contact handle these materials together, and the update cadence is irregular, once per store. In the order-fulfilment and after-sales question stage, the status, quantities and responsibility boundaries recorded in these materials are presented to external users, so the authorization meaning carried by the sharing entry point must match the state recorded in the materials. Deposit loss, asset loss and labour or franchise disputes are the documented consequences of error, and their source sits here.
Constraints at the shared access step
The no-login window is created under App Detail - Publish Channel, and the system generates a complete link. The link identifier serves access only and does not act as business authorization. Anonymous access relies on a localId; the same device and same browser can pull conversation records, and the documented limit is 20 records from the last 30 days. Switching devices or clearing browser cache loses those records. Identity verification is a POST root address; initialization, conversation start and conversation end each send a request to the corresponding interface, and success must be true to allow the user to continue. The uid must be a string without the documented characters and no longer than 255 bytes. Expiry time, QPM, points cap and identity verification are partly limited to the commercial edition.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the lease termination agreement for one store of a chain brand reads: "Party A and Party B confirm that the lease relationship terminates on 31 March 2025; Party B shall complete asset clearance and return the keys before the termination date; deposit refund is conditional on both parties signing the asset count sheet." In the same batch, the asset count sheet status field reads "awaiting both-party signature", and the inventory clearance form status field reads "submitted". The proposed determination request is: "The deposit refund condition for this store is satisfied and may be confirmed in an external reply through the sharing entry point." The input, comparison and conclusion for this request are checked in the sections below.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Link to the sample materials |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Record display only; name by store and batch | Distinguishes sharing entry points across stores |
| Expiry time | Set by intended use scope and check the actual edition | Compared against material dates such as the lease termination date |
| QPM | Maximum access count per user per minute | Checked as needed during external question handling |
| Points cap | Check usage limit and cost attribution | Costs arise under the team that owns the app |
| Identity verification | Commercial edition scope; check success and uid per the official interface | Identity boundary when connecting an external system |
| Conversation record boundary | Anonymous localId depends on same device and same browser | Cross-device records require separate identity and session design |
Three common errors
- Treating the link identifier as business authorization. The sample proposed determination asks to confirm that the deposit refund condition is satisfied, while the asset count sheet status is "awaiting both-party signature" and the lease termination agreement makes signature a refund condition. The input is the text of these two materials, the comparison is between the refund condition and the recorded status, and the observable result is that the condition is not satisfied. Link accessibility does not change that status.
- Treating a pending item as an existing operating permission. The inventory clearance form status is "submitted"; submission does not equal completed clearance and does not equal returned assets. The input is that status field, the comparison is between "clearance completed" and "submitted", and the observable result is that the claim is unsupported.
- Treating
successfrom identity verification as business approval. Identity verification only decides whether the user may continue operating, anduidis used to pull and save conversation records. The input is the authentication response, the comparison is between business approval status and authentication success status, and the observable result is that the two are not the same fact.
How to verify the setup
- For the sample materials, input the lease termination agreement and the asset count sheet text, compare the deposit refund condition against the signature status on the count sheet, and if the status is "awaiting both-party signature" then judge the condition unsatisfied and do not confirm satisfaction in an external reply.
- For the sample proposed determination, input the inventory clearance form status "submitted", compare "clearance completed" against "submitted", and if only a submission record exists then record the claim as unsupported and preserve the evidence gap for the signature materials.
- For identity verification, input the
successanduidreturned by the authentication interface, compare authentication success against business approval, and ifsuccessistruethen that only means the user may continue operating; business approval status still requires separate checking against the materials. An empty result can carry an explicit paper input[]to check downstream design, and retrieval and similarity do not carry permission or entity isolation.