What the documents look like
Multi-store matrix operations compare contracts and transaction materials drawn from platform merchant backends, ERP channel pricing, brand anti-counterfeiting systems and dealer reports. The working set includes store authorization lists, price control sheets, cross-territory complaint forms and monthly sales reports. Updates arrive daily or monthly. Cross-store authorization and price order are the focal points of review.
The same transaction can appear in an authorization list, a price sheet and a complaint form at once. Comparison requires aligning the same subject, the same period and the same field across materials before any judgment about authorization or data isolation can be made. A store name alone does not establish which channel it sold through; an authorization period alone does not establish which products it covered; a complaint record alone does not establish that a price rule was breached.
FastGPT organizes access through members, departments and groups. Member permissions carry the highest priority; department and group permissions combine as a union and rank below member permissions. Resource permissions cover team, application, knowledge base and file/folder (collection). File-level permission is a commercial-edition feature that a knowledge base administrator must enable first. Once enabled, each file or folder receives a complete permission snapshot, and list, detail and retrieval recall are each authorized against that snapshot. Knowledge base permission remains the threshold: collection permission cannot bypass it.
Constraints at the access controls step
A hypothetical drill sample is used below. It is a paper construction for this page and does not describe any real customer, real company or completed action.
Store authorization list, quoted text: "Store A is authorized to sell Brand X products from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, within online flagship store scope only."
Price control sheet, quoted text: "Store A's minimum selling price for Brand X products in March 2025 is 199 yuan."
Cross-territory complaint form, quoted text: "In March 2025 a complaint was received that Store A sold Brand X products at 179 yuan."
Draft sentence awaiting review: "In March 2025 Store A sold Brand X products at 179 yuan, violating the price control sheet, and this constitutes unauthorized selling."
Three constraints shape how this draft can be checked.
First, retrieval recall filtering applies only when authorization runs under the current member identity. When a workflow preselects a knowledge base and does not authorize by member identity, file-level filtering does not apply and recall follows knowledge base permission. A similarity score does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records; relevance is not a permission or entity filter.
Second, team administrators do not bypass file-level permission. Team-level management permission covers only the team's own resources such as member groups and organizations; knowledge bases and files remain authorized by their own collaborator configuration. System root and team owner are treated as holding all permissions on all files.
Third, the draft sentence combines three separate fields. The authorization list states a period and a channel scope. The price sheet states a minimum price. The complaint form states a reported fact. None of these supplies the others.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this page's task. Where a value is given, it is a hypothetical starting point for this drill, with the reason for choosing it and the comparison object named.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Comparison method and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base file-level permission switch | Off | In the off state, collection permission inherits from the knowledge base and no collection permission records are queried. Off is chosen because the sample materials have not been confirmed as needing per-file isolation. |
| Collaborator configuration | Submitted list includes the current creator | Under full-overwrite semantics, a submitted list missing the creator is rejected. Including the creator avoids a single overwrite removing the creator record. |
| Retrieval recall authorization mode | Authorize by current member identity | Only this mode triggers file-level filtering. It is chosen because the drill needs to observe whether an unauthorized file is recalled. |
| Team administrator permission | Does not bypass file-level permission | Team-level management permission covers only the team's own resources. Knowledge bases and files remain authorized by their own collaborator configuration. |
| File move permission | Administrator required at both source and target | Moving between root directory and folder additionally requires team knowledge base creation permission. The drill checks this condition and does not assume a move has been executed. |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval relevance setting as a permission or entity isolation mechanism. A similarity score does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Retrieval recall authorization filters item by item under the current member identity. Relevance cannot substitute for that filtering.
- Treating a pending or quoted state as signed or effective. In the sample, the authorization list states a period and scope, the price sheet states a minimum price, and the complaint form states a reported fact. These are different fields. None can be used to supply a missing authorization or effectiveness clause.
- Reading team administrator permission as a bypass of file-level permission. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission. Knowledge bases and files remain authorized by their own collaborator configuration. Only system root and team owner are treated as holding all permissions.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three quoted materials and the draft sentence. Compare the draft phrase "violating the price control sheet" against the price sheet text "minimum selling price ... 199 yuan" and the complaint form text "sold ... at 179 yuan". Check whether the same subject, the same period and the same product field are stated. A contradiction can be recorded only when the same period, the same store and the same product field carry mutually exclusive values. If the price sheet does not state that the minimum applied to this store in this period, or the complaint form does not state that the price concerned Brand X products, the comparison remains unresolved and the gap is recorded.
- Input the authorization list text "within online flagship store scope only" and compare it against the draft phrase "constitutes unauthorized selling". The authorization list states a period and a scope. If the draft does not state whether Store A's actual sales channel fell outside the online flagship store scope, the claim is not supported and the evidence gap is recorded. A pending request is not approval, and an offered option is not execution.
- Input a retrieval request and observe whether returned results are filtered by files readable to the current member. If a member lacks read permission on a sample file, that file should not be recalled. If the returned result includes that file, record the actual observation without inferring a system error or an automatic business action. An empty result can be checked against downstream design using an explicit paper input of
[]; this does not assert that a constructed rule query must return[].
Across these checks, the same-model retrieval association requirement applies only to libraries sharing a vector model. It does not extend to business-registration sites or other external systems. Where identifiers differ, verify the identifier first and exclude non-matching items rather than running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.