What the documents look like
Pinduoduo low-price campaign operations revolve around low-price resource slots, campaign inventory and refund-rate movement. The working materials named in the brief are campaign registration forms, product cost calculation sheets, after-sales refund slips and platform in-site messages. These materials pass through different hands: campaign operators, supply-chain buyers and after-sales staff. For one campaign, the registered price, the cost basis and the refund records can sit in separate documents.
Contract and transaction material comparison means placing the price recorded on a registration form, the margin basis on a cost sheet and the actual amount on a refund slip inside one authorized scope and checking them against each other. The brief states that material updates occur daily or per campaign. Comparison therefore has to stay within the same campaign period and the same field.
The access-control step matters because FastGPT separates resources and permissions. A team, an application, a knowledge base and a file or folder (collection) each carry their own permission bits. Knowledge base file-level permission is a commercial-edition feature. In the closed state, collection readability matches the knowledge base. In the open state, each file or folder produces a permission snapshot, and the list, the detail view and retrieval recall are each checked item by item against that snapshot. Knowledge base permission remains the threshold; collection permission cannot bypass it. Retrieval recall applies file-level filtering only when authentication runs as the current member identity. A workflow that preselects a knowledge base without member-identity authentication does not filter by file. A team administrator does not bypass file-level permission. A relevance or similarity setting does not carry permission or entity isolation duties.
Constraints at the access controls step
FastGPT permission management has three dimensions: member permission, which has the highest priority; and department and group permission, which follow a union principle and rank below member permission. Judgment first checks the user's individual member permission, then the union of department and group permissions, and combines the results. A collaborator must be added before permission can be managed for that collaborator.
For a collection, the documented roles are read permission, write permission, administrator and creator. The creator cannot be granted or modified through collaborator configuration. A submitted collaborator list must include the current creator, or the submission is rejected. Collaborator configuration uses full-overwrite semantics: the submitted list is the final result. A collection in the inherited state derives permission from its parent and follows parent changes; a collection in the independent state is no longer overwritten by parent changes, and its subtree stops propagating from that node. Restoring inheritance keeps permissions unique to that node relative to the parent and synchronizes its subtree.
Deleting a file or folder is limited to the creator. An administrator or a collaborator with write permission cannot delete. Ownership transfer is limited to the creator and can pass to another member of the same team, together with ownership of subfolders. Knowledge base ownership transfer cascades to files and folders held by the original creator.
Retrieval recall after file-level permission is opened filters by the files the current member can read, covering the knowledge base search node in workflows and agents and the knowledge base search test. This applies only when authentication runs as the current member identity. The system root skips file-level parsing and is treated as holding all permissions on all files. The team owner holds all resources in the team and is treated as holding all permissions on all files. A team administrator does not bypass file-level permission; team-level management permission covers only the team's own resources, while knowledge bases and files are authenticated by their own collaborator configuration.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a Pinduoduo campaign operations team creates a knowledge base named "Campaign A materials" in FastGPT and opens file-level permission. The file "Campaign A registration form" states in its source text: "Campaign period 1 March 2025 to 7 March 2025; registered price 19.9 yuan; registering entity is the store's own operation." The file "Campaign A cost sheet" states in its source text: "For the same period, the cost basis includes procurement and logistics; unit cost 21.5 yuan." Member A holds read permission on the knowledge base and read permission on "Campaign A registration form", and does not hold read permission on "Campaign A cost sheet". The proposed draft sentence reads: "During Campaign A, the registered price of 19.9 yuan was below the unit cost of 21.5 yuan for the same period." The judgment request for this draft sentence is: check whether the two source sentences form a contradiction in the same period and the same field.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check relevant to this page | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base file-level permission switch | Opened by a knowledge base administrator from the target row menu in the file list | After opening, collection permission snapshots take effect and retrieval filters by the files the member can read |
| Collection collaborator configuration | Full-overwrite semantics; the submitted list is the final result | The submitted list must contain the current creator, or it is rejected |
| Member read permission check | Check knowledge base read permission and target file read permission per account | Both are required before that file can be viewed |
| Retrieval authentication condition | File-level filtering applies only when authentication runs as the current member identity | It does not apply to a preselected knowledge base without member-identity authentication |
| External system interface authentication | Verified separately from FastGPT resource permission | External system permission does not replace platform resource permission |
| Hypothetical exercise starting point | This exercise takes "Campaign A registration form" and "Campaign A cost sheet" as the comparison scope | This scope is specified by the sample, not an official default value |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval relevance setting as permission filtering. Observable form: assuming that lowering a similarity threshold excludes unauthorized files. Check input is member A's account and "Campaign A cost sheet"; the comparison is between retrieval results and the file-level permission snapshot; the observation is whether member A sees an unauthorized file in the results.
- Treating team administrator identity as grounds to bypass file-level permission. Observable form: reading an unauthorized collection directly with a team administrator account. Check input is the team administrator account and the target file; the comparison is between actually readable content and the collaborator configuration; the observation is whether unauthorized visibility appears.
- Treating a pending handover request as authorized execution. Observable form: opening file access on the basis of a handover request that has not been approved. Check input is the request text and the current collaborator list; the comparison is between the request's state and the permission record; the observation is whether permission changes before approval.
How to verify the setup
- For the draft sentence in the hypothetical sample, the input is the source text of "Campaign A registration form" and the source text of "Campaign A cost sheet". Compare three items: entity, period and field. The entity is the store's own operation in both; the period is 1 March 2025 to 7 March 2025 in both; the fields are registered price and unit cost respectively. The two field values differ, and the field names differ, so they do not form a same-field mutually exclusive contradiction. The draft sentence places two different fields side by side, so it must be marked as a cross-field comparison and not judged a contradiction. The expected phenomenon is that the difference is recorded and the evidence gap is preserved.
- For member A's access scope, the input is member A's account and the two files. Compare knowledge base read permission with each file's read permission. The expected phenomenon is that member A can view "Campaign A registration form", and a search for "Campaign A cost sheet" does not return that file's content. If it is returned, record it as unauthorized recall pending verification.
- For the handover request, the input is the request text and the current collaborator list. Compare the request's state with the permission record. The expected phenomenon is that while the request is pending review, the collaborator list is unchanged. If the list has changed, record the change time and the operator, and do not infer that approval occurred.