What the documents look like
Peak-sale warehouse and delivery scheduling revolves around short-term peak capacity and the arrangement of people, vehicles, and sites. The working materials come from historical peak-sale orders, platform campaign registrations, WMS capacity, and courier pickup capability. The documents handled day to day include peak-sale forecast tables, staff rosters, courier assurance plans, and exception daily reports. Updates follow each campaign and each day.
In this category, contract and transaction material comparison means that the quantities, time windows, and responsible parties appearing in forecast tables, rosters, assurance plans, and exception reports are checked field by field against contracts or transaction materials. Classification, labels, and retrieval relevance serve lookup only. They do not substitute for access authorization.
When file-level permission is enabled, list views, detail views, and retrieval recall are each filtered per file according to what the current member can read. Files the member cannot read do not appear in results. A relevance score is not a permission filter, and a similarity setting cannot exclude unauthorized records.
Constraints at the access controls step
Peak-sale materials update frequently, and handovers and comparisons often happen while a campaign is running. Permission determination first checks the individual member permission, then takes the union of department and group permissions; the final permission is the combination of those results. Knowledge base permission is always the threshold: collection permission cannot bypass knowledge base permission.
When file-level permission is off, collection readability matches the knowledge base, and the system does not query any collection permission records. When it is on, each file and folder generates a complete permission snapshot, and list, detail, and retrieval recall are authorized item by item against that snapshot. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission. Team owners and system root are treated as having all permissions on all files. External system authentication and FastGPT resource permission are verified separately.
Hypothetical drill sample: a warehouse and delivery team's knowledge base holds a file titled "Peak-Sale Courier Assurance Plan." The source text contains three sentences: "This campaign's expected peak shipment volume is 120,000 pieces per day; the carrier commits to providing no fewer than eight trunk vehicles per day during the campaign; the exception daily report is submitted by the warehouse duty manager before 10:00 the next day." A second file, "Staff Roster Table," contains: "Temporary sorting staff shifts cover the day before the campaign through the day the campaign ends." A proposed draft sentence reads: "The carrier provides eight trunk vehicles per day during the campaign, meeting the assurance plan requirement." This draft differs in scope from the source wording "no fewer than eight." Permission state: team member A holds knowledge base read permission and read permission on the assurance plan file; member B holds only knowledge base read permission, and that file is in independent state with no read permission granted to B. The handover request is: transfer read permission on those two files to member B for exception daily report checking during the campaign.
Configuration and implementation checks
The settings below come from documented permission and file-level permission configuration. Numeric items are hypothetical starting points for this drill, used only to describe the comparison method.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Notes and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base file-level permission switch | Off (default) | When off, collection permission matches the knowledge base and no collection permission records are queried; when on, authorization is item by item against the snapshot. Compare the same member's visible file list before and after enabling. |
| File collaborator role | Read permission | Stacks with knowledge base read permission. Compare what the member actually sees in the file list and detail view. |
| Collaborator submission semantics | Full overwrite | The submitted list is the final result. Compare whether the creator is still in the list before and after submission. |
| Inherited state versus independent state | Inherited | An independent node is no longer overwritten by parent changes. Compare whether the file's permission follows after a parent permission change. |
| Retrieval recall filter condition | Authenticated as the current member | Filtering by readable file applies only under this condition. Compare recall scope for the same query under an authorized and an unauthorized account. |
| External system authentication | Verified separately from resource permission | Compare whether the external interface authentication result and the FastGPT resource permission determination remain independent of each other. |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval similarity as permission filtering. Input: member B's retrieval query against the "Peak-Sale Courier Assurance Plan." Comparison object: B's collection read permission snapshot. Observable result: whether B sees that file in the recall results. A similarity setting does not change that result.
- Treating a team administrator as able to bypass file-level permission. Input: a team administrator account accessing a file in independent state. Comparison object: the file's collaborator configuration. Observable result: whether the administrator is blocked by file-level permission. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission.
- Treating a form submission as authorization execution. Input: the wording "transfer read permission" in the handover request. Comparison object: the actual change record of the file collaborator list. Observable result: whether member B appears in the list. The request alone does not constitute an authorization result.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source text of the "Peak-Sale Courier Assurance Plan" and the proposed draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare the field scope of "no fewer than eight" against "eight." Observable result: whether the draft fully preserves the source's lower-bound quantity meaning. Expected: the draft changes the source scope and needs revision.
- Input the accounts of member A and member B. Compare the visibility of the same file in the file list and detail view. Observable result: whether B sees the file. Expected: B cannot see it, because the file is in independent state and no read permission was granted to B.
- Input the handover request and the file collaborator list. Compare the request wording against the actual list change. Observable result: whether B appears in the collaborator list. Expected: the list is unchanged, the request remains pending, and no authorization is complete.
Unprovided fields, unobserved error messages, and unexecuted business actions remain unknown. A pending review does not demonstrate the absence of an operating permission. Signing, reaching cooperation, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. Retrieval checks record only actual observations and failure branches; they do not guarantee a first hit or complete recall.