What the documents look like
Near-expiry markdown handling follows the shelf-life cycle of store inventory. It does not weigh and sort individual order lines. The working materials are near-expiry lists, markdown approvals, damage reports and promotional price tags. They draw on POS stock-age data, store inspections, ERP inventory and quality-inspection records, and they are refreshed by day or by shift.
For contract and transaction material comparison, the access question is narrower than the whole workflow. A store manager, a loss administrator and a finance auditor each need to know which files they can see and which files they can act on. Retrieval similarity and file category labels do not grant access. When an external business system is connected, the external interface authentication and the FastGPT resource permissions are checked separately.
The material type matters because these documents carry different states. A near-expiry list records a batch and its shelf life. A markdown approval records whether a discount decision is pending or confirmed. A damage report may not exist yet. A promotional price tag states a price. Comparing a draft conclusion against these materials requires matching the same subject, the same period and the same field, and treating a pending state as pending.
Constraints at the access controls step
Knowledge base permission is the threshold. File-level permission cannot bypass knowledge base permission. A user who is granted access to one file still needs read permission on the knowledge base that holds it.
File-level permission is off by default. In the off state, the readability of a collection matches the knowledge base, and the system does not query any collection permission records. When it is turned on, each file or folder receives a complete permission snapshot, and the list, the detail view and retrieval recall are each authorized against that snapshot. Turning the switch on requires knowledge base administrator permission. Materialization runs synchronously inside the request, and the switch is set only after materialization succeeds; a mid-way failure leaves the switch off and the operation can be run again.
Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission. Team-level management permission covers team resources such as member groups and organizations, while knowledge bases and files are still checked against their own collaborator configuration. System root and the team owner are treated as having full permission on all files.
Retrieval recall filters by the files the current member can read, and this applies only when authorization runs by current member identity. A workflow that preselects a knowledge base without member-identity authorization does not apply file-level filtering and still recalls by knowledge base permission. A similarity score is not a category filter, an entity filter or a permission filter, and retrieval is not authorization.
Collaborator configuration uses full-overwrite semantics: the submitted list is the final result. The creator cannot be granted or changed through collaborator configuration, and a submitted list that omits the current creator is rejected. Deletion is limited to the creator; an administrator or a collaborator with write permission cannot delete.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The material text reads: "On 10 March 2025, Store A submitted a near-expiry list. Batch B-0310 contains 12 cups of yogurt with a shelf life ending 12 March 2025. The markdown approval form states that the discount rate for this batch is pending confirmation by the loss administrator. No damage report has been generated." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "This batch has completed markdown approval and may be sold at a markdown price." Comparison requires checking the batch's status field on the markdown approval form against the draft sentence for the same subject, the same period and the same field. A pending confirmation is not a completed approval.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below covers the sample on this page. It lists settings already documented in the official material or implementation checks to perform. The starting values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, with the comparison object and the reason stated.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Comparison object and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base file-level permission switch | Off state | Compare with the on state to confirm that the off state queries no collection permission records |
| Collaborator on the markdown approval form | Loss administrator holds administrator | Compare with the finance auditor's read permission to confirm that write operations are limited to the administrator |
| Permission on the near-expiry list file | Inherits knowledge base permission | Compare with the independent state to confirm that the inherited state follows parent changes |
| Retrieval recall authorization mode | Authorized by current member identity | Compare with a preselected knowledge base without member authorization to confirm that the latter applies no file-level filtering |
| Creator of the damage report | Store A manager | Compare with the collaborator list to confirm that deletion is limited to the creator |
| File permission of a team administrator | Does not bypass file-level permission | Compare with system root to confirm that the latter is treated as having full permission |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval similarity or a file category label as access authorization. Input: a member's recall results in the knowledge base search test. Comparison: whether that member holds read permission on each recalled file. Observable result: whether any recalled file falls outside the member's readable range. A similarity score is not a permission filter.
- Treating a pending review state as a completed approval. Input: the status field on the markdown approval form reading "pending confirmation". Comparison: the draft sentence "has completed markdown approval". Observable result: whether the two are mutually exclusive on the same subject, the same period and the same field. A pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission, and it is not a completed approval.
- Treating team administrator identity as a bypass of file-level permission. Input: a team administrator account accessing a file. Comparison: the collaborator configuration on that file. Observable result: whether that account holds read permission on the file. A team administrator does not bypass file-level permission.
How to verify the setup
- Use the hypothetical sample text and the draft sentence. Input: the markdown approval form status field reading "pending confirmation" and the draft sentence "has completed markdown approval". Compare the two values on the same subject, the same period and the same field. Observable result: when the status field reads pending confirmation, the draft sentence is not supported, and the evidence gap is recorded.
- Use batch B-0310 from the hypothetical near-expiry list. Input: the Store A manager account and the finance auditor account accessing that list file separately. Compare the collaborator roles of the two accounts on that file. Observable result: when the manager holds write permission and the finance auditor holds read permission, write operations are executable only by the manager.
- Use the state in the hypothetical sample where no damage report has been generated. Input: the creator field of the damage report and the collaborator list. Compare whether the creator appears in the collaborator list. Observable result: when the creator is absent from the list, the submission is rejected, and that rejection is recorded. An empty result can be checked against downstream design using the paper input [], without claiming that a fictional rule search returns [].
Across all three checks, the account-level comparison is what matters: the same material is inspected with an account that holds permission and an account that does not, and the visible content and operation result are recorded. File classification, tags and retrieval similarity are not access authorization, and retrieval settings cannot stand in for permission. Where a field is not stated in the material, the value remains unknown and the evidence gap is kept open rather than filled with a constructed authorization or effective clause.