What the documents look like
A hypermarket fresh-food concession counter is operated on site by a supplier, with revenue shared by sales volume. Contract and transaction materials therefore belong to two parties. The materials in scope are the concession contract, daily sales reports, shrinkage records, and food purchase inspection records. When contract terms are compared against transaction materials, the sales quantity, shrinkage attribution, and purchase evidence for the same batch of goods must be aligned across both sets of materials. The materials update daily and per batch, and the comparison depends on the correspondence between store inventory counts and supplier delivery notes. These characteristics mean access configuration must divide materials by ownership, not grant access loosely by job title.
Constraints at the access controls step
Knowledge base permission is the threshold, and file-level permission cannot bypass it. After file-level permission is enabled, each file or folder generates a permission snapshot, and lists, details, and retrieval recall are authenticated item by item against that snapshot. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission; team owners and system root are treated as holding permission to all files. Retrieval recall filters only when authentication runs under the current member identity; scenarios where a knowledge base is preselected in a workflow and authentication does not run under member identity do not apply file-level filtering. A relevance score does not carry permission or entity isolation.
Hypothetical paper test case: a hypermarket fresh-food department signs a concession contract with one concession supplier, agreeing that the supplier operates a leafy-vegetable counter in the store's fresh-food area and shares revenue by sales amount. Two source sentences: "This contract is valid from March 1, 2024 to February 28, 2025; Party B operates a leafy-vegetable counter in Party A's fresh-food area and settles revenue share by daily sales report." "The purchase inspection record dated May 10, 2024 states: leafy vegetables arrived at 80 kg and passed inspection." The draft sentence to be judged: "The supplier's May 2024 leafy-vegetable counter revenue share has been settled per contract." The draft sentence concerns the supplier as subject, May 2024 revenue share as object, and completed settlement as status. The source text gives only the contract validity period and business scope, plus a single-day purchase inspection record; it does not state the May sales report, the shrinkage allocation result, or a completed settlement status. Judging the same subject, same period, and same field: neither the contract clause nor the inspection record addresses completed settlement, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below centers on the sample above and lists documented settings or implementation check items relevant to this task. The value is a hypothetical starting point for this trial, not an official default.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base file-level permission switch | Enabled | Contract and transaction materials need to be distinguished by file; compare with the disabled state where the whole knowledge base shares one permission |
| Contract folder collaborators | Hypermarket fresh-food department and supplier contact, read permission | Both parties need to view the contract; compare with fresh-food department only |
| Daily sales report collaborators | Hypermarket fresh-food department, write permission | Sales data is maintained by the store; compare with supplier write permission |
| Shrinkage record collaborators | Hypermarket fresh-food department administrator, supplier read permission | Shrinkage allocation needs store confirmation; compare with supplier edit permission |
| Purchase inspection record collaborators | Hypermarket fresh-food department and supplier, read permission | Inspection records are kept by both parties; compare with supplier only |
| Retrieval authentication mode | Authenticate under current member identity | Unauthorized files need filtering during retrieval; compare with preselected knowledge base without authentication |
Three common errors
- Treating a relevance score as a permission filter condition. Relevance affects ordering only and does not exclude unauthorized files; whether an unauthorized file is recalled depends on the file-level permission snapshot and the authentication mode.
- Substituting job titles for resource access testing. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission, while team owners are treated as able to read all files; the two must not be conflated.
- Treating a pending or submitted collaborator configuration as an effective authorization. Collaborator configuration uses full-overwrite semantics, the submitted list is the final result, and the creator cannot be overwritten or removed.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence, and compare the contract validity period, the inspection record, and the settlement completion status across three fields. The draft sentence claims May settlement is complete, the source text does not state that field, so the judgment is unsupported and the evidence gap is recorded.
- Access the contract, daily sales report, shrinkage record, and purchase inspection record with a fresh-food department account and a supplier account respectively, and compare the actually visible content against the authorization scope in the configuration table. The fresh-food department can write the sales report and the supplier can only read the contract and inspection record; the condition is satisfied only when the observed behavior matches the configuration.
- Check the downstream design with a paper input of empty results, and observe the relationship between the retrieval return and the authentication mode. Under authentication by current member identity, unauthorized files are not recalled; with a preselected knowledge base and no authentication, recall follows knowledge base permission. Record the two observations separately and do not infer that an unrelated query must be empty.
This page addresses only: hypermarket fresh-food concession counter / contract and transaction material comparison / permission and data isolation. During an operational handover, which materials, operations, and requests sit in which authorization state cannot be treated as authorization execution through retrieval or a form.