What the documents look like
Marketplace category access happens before onboarding or listing. The review object is the entity qualification and the authorization chain: business license, trademark registration certificate, brand authorization chain, and industry license. These materials are collected by channel operations staff, store onboarding specialists, or brand-side channel managers, and they are submitted at each onboarding without a fixed schedule. The contract and transaction material comparison step aligns entity names, authorized objects, validity periods, and qualification documents field by field across authorization letters, purchase contracts, and supply vouchers. Comparison conclusions depend on the source text of the materials. Whether a material can be read, written, or managed is determined by permission configuration. Retrieval relevance affects whether a file can be found and does not change access authorization.
A hypothetical drill sample is provided here for illustration. A brand-side channel manager submits an authorization letter whose source text reads: "Authorizing party: Huachen Daily Chemical Co., Ltd.; authorized party: Xingye Trading Co., Ltd.; authorized brand: Qinglan; authorized category: personal care; authorization period: January 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026." A supply contract is submitted at the same time, whose source text reads: "Supplier: Huachen Daily Chemical Co., Ltd.; purchaser: Xingye Trading Co., Ltd.; product: Qinglan shampoo; delivery date: March 2026." A draft sentence reads: "Xingye Trading Co., Ltd. has obtained complete authorization for the Qinglan brand personal care category for the full year of 2026." The question to be judged is whether this draft sentence is consistent with the source text of the two materials, and who has the right to read these two files.
Constraints at the access controls step
Qualification materials often contain undisclosed authorization terms and entity information, and different roles within the same team need to see different scopes. FastGPT permissions are divided into three dimensions: members, departments, and groups. Member permissions have the highest priority, and department and group permissions are combined as a union. Knowledge base file-level permissions are off by default. When off, collection readability matches the knowledge base, and the system does not query any collection permission records. When on, each file generates a permission snapshot, and the list, detail, and retrieval recall are authorized item by item. Knowledge base permission is always a threshold; authorizing a single file separately cannot bypass knowledge base read permission. Retrieval recall filters by files readable by the current member, and this takes effect only when authentication is performed by member identity. Scenarios where a knowledge base is preselected in a workflow and authentication is not performed by member identity do not apply file-level filtering.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check item | Relevant setting or implementation check on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base read permission | Check whether the target member has read permission on the knowledge base | Without read permission, the authorization letter and contract cannot be viewed |
| File-level permission switch | Confirm whether the knowledge base has file-level permissions enabled | When off, collection permissions match the knowledge base and no collection permission records are queried |
| Collection read permission | Check the member's read permission on the authorization letter file | Determines whether the authorization letter content can be viewed |
| Collection write permission | Check the member's write permission on the file | Determines whether file information can be modified |
| Collection administrator | Check whether the member is an administrator of the file | Determines whether collaborators can be configured or inheritance restored |
| Creator | Confirm the identity of the file creator | Deletion is limited to the creator; administrators and write-permission collaborators cannot delete |
For this hypothetical trial starting point: to check the sample, assume the authorization letter and the contract are placed in the same knowledge base, and only the channel manager and the onboarding specialist are granted read permission, with no write permission. The reason for choosing this starting point is that comparison only requires reading the source text and does not require modification. Compared with the full permissions of the knowledge base administrator, this allows observation of whether read-permission members can see the file list and details.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval relevance as access authorization. Retrieval recall filters by files readable by the member, and the relevance score does not perform permission isolation. If a member lacks read permission on the file, the file should not appear in retrieval results.
- Using knowledge base permission in place of file-level permission. Knowledge base read permission is a threshold, and after file-level permissions are enabled, item-by-item file authorization is still required. A member with only knowledge base read permission should not see the content of a file that has not been separately authorized.
- Treating "complete authorization" in the draft sentence as directly equivalent to the source text. The source text authorization period is January 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026, and the authorized category is personal care. The draft sentence writes "full year of 2026" and "complete authorization," so the authorized object, category, and period need field-by-field comparison, and parts not stated in the source text remain pending verification.
How to verify the setup
- Input: the authorization letter source text and contract source text from the hypothetical drill sample, plus the draft sentence. Compare: whether the authorizing party, authorized party, brand, category, and period in the draft sentence are consistent with the authorization letter source text, and whether the product and delivery date are consistent with the contract source text. Observe: if the draft sentence contains "complete authorization" not stated in the source text or an expression exceeding the authorization period, the sentence is inconsistent with the source text; if the fields correspond item by item, it is consistent.
- Input: assume member A has only knowledge base read permission and has not obtained collection read permission on the authorization letter file. Compare: the range of files readable by member A when viewing the file list and details. Observe: member A should not see the content of the unauthorized file; if it can be seen, file-level permission is not in effect or not enabled.
- Input: assume member B has collection administrator permission on the authorization letter file, and member C has write permission. Compare: the availability of collaborator configuration and deletion operations for the two. Observe: member B can configure collaborators, and member C cannot delete the file; deletion is limited to the creator. If member C successfully deletes the file, this does not match the documented description, and the actual observation should be recorded and the permission configuration verified.
If retrieval results are empty, a paper input of an explicit empty list can be used to check downstream design; it cannot be claimed that a fictional rule retrieval will necessarily return an empty list. Knowledge bases across different vector models cannot be associated together. First check the identifiers and exclude those that do not match, record the actual observation, and do not perform cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.