What the documents look like
For document comparison in Channel diversion reviews, this page examines FastGPT access controls. Scope diversion-investigation access by channel and case without equating photos with penalties. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the access controls step
Suppose a channel complaint alleges sales outside its area, an authenticity-code record awaits source checking, and a penalty notice is an unsent draft. A contract comparison should inspect separate access to the agreement, photographs and code record. Case categories establish no rights across channels. Photo descriptions are investigative inputs, not penalty findings, and contract-management rights grant no sanction approval. These invented passages contain no real code, distributor or enforcement result.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Investigation-access comparison | Hypothetical material | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Complaint | Alleged out-of-area sale | No proven-diversion claim |
| Code record | Source unverified | No actual code supplied |
| Photos | Case-scoped authority | Same-resource positive/negative tests |
| Notice | Unsent draft | Editing is no dispatch authority |
| Agreement | Applicable channel | No cross-channel liability inference |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Team roles | Inspect roles for the actual member identity. |
Resource permissions | Inspect reading, editing and management by resource. |
Document classification | Classification and tags do not replace authorization. |
External-system permissions | Verify external-interface authentication separately. |
Per-account validation | Test the same source with authorized and unauthorized accounts. |
Three common errors
- If a shared case tag exposes another channel’s photos, test the same photo resource with authorized and unauthorized accounts and inspect actual roles and file scope.
- If editing the penalty draft becomes authority to send it, inspect business approval, signing entity and dispatch evidence. Editing grants no decision authority.
- If an unverified code becomes proven diversion, inspect record provenance, investigation state and the agreement’s channel scope. File accessibility supplies no evidence.
How to verify the setup
Specify purpose and required read, edit or management rights for contracts, complaints, photos and notices. Prefer invented samples for member tests. Inspect citation addresses for resource-permission bypass; folders and categories do not automatically create data boundaries. Responsible staff must check evidence and authorization before proposing a penalty. This exercise queries no actual code system, sends no notice and determines no legal or contractual liability.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Channel Diversion Complaint Form, Anti-Counterfeiting Code Records, Penalty Notice and Investigation Photos |
| Candidate sources | Anti-Counterfeiting Code System, E-commerce Platform Prices, Dealer Shipment Records and Market Inspection |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |