What the documents look like
Violation appeals address penalties that have already been issued, so the file set is retrospective: the violation notice, the livestream recording, product qualification documents, and the appeal statement. The comparison task in this category puts the subject, authorization scope, and validity period recorded in a product qualification document against transaction records and contract text, field by field. Store compliance, livestream operations, and legal staff often work from the same materials while needing different fields, which makes the access-control question concrete: who can see which recording, which qualification file, and which transaction record, and whether a comparison conclusion can be read by someone without rights to the underlying file.
Two industry facts shape this step. First, the materials arrive irregularly, once per violation, so the file set is assembled case by case rather than through a recurring pipeline. Second, the people who need the materials hold different roles, and role names do not substitute for testing what a given account can actually open. The access-control layer therefore has to be verified per account against the specific file, not inferred from job title or from search behavior.
Constraints at the access controls step
FastGPT evaluates member permissions first, then the union of department and group permissions. The knowledge base remains a threshold: collection permissions cannot bypass knowledge base permissions, so a member still needs read permission on the knowledge base before any individual file can be opened. File-level permission is off by default; while it is off, collection readability matches the knowledge base and the system does not query collection permission records. Once file-level permission is enabled, each file or folder generates a permission snapshot, and lists, details, and retrieval recall are authorized item by item against that snapshot.
Retrieval recall filters by readable files only when authorization runs against the 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. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission; team-level management covers team resources such as member groups and organizations, while knowledge bases and files are still authorized through their own collaborator configuration. A relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter, and retrieval is not authorization. Where transaction records come from an external system, that system's interface authentication is verified separately from FastGPT resource permissions.
Assumed drill sample: a store compliance group receives a violation notice concerning a product qualification file and one transaction record. The qualification text reads: "Licensor A, licensee B, authorized product category skincare, authorization validity from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025." The transaction record shows an order date of March 10, 2026. The proposed handoff request reads: "Ask operations to state in the appeal statement that this qualification covers the present transaction." The point to determine is whether the authorization period and the transaction date fall within the same period and the same field.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check item | Documented setting or implementation condition | Relation to this sample |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base read permission | Read permission on the knowledge base is required before accessing a collection | Compliance, operations, and legal each need it first |
| File-level permission switch | Off by default; once on, authorization runs against the snapshot item by item | Whether the qualification file and transaction record can be authorized separately depends on this switch |
| Collection collaborators | Full-overwrite semantics; the submitted list must include the current creator | The list submitted at handoff determines who can read the qualification file |
| Retrieval recall authorization | Filtering applies only when authorizing by current member identity | Whether the appeal-statement search leaks depends on the authorization mode |
| Team administrator boundary | Does not bypass file-level permission | A team administrator opening the qualification file is still bound by collection permission |
| External system authentication | Verified separately from FastGPT resource permissions | If the transaction record comes from an external system, its interface authentication is checked separately |
Assumed trial starting point: set the file-level permission switch to on, because this sample requires separate authorization for the qualification file and the transaction record; the comparison object is the visible scope under the off state, where collections inherit knowledge base permission. This starting point is an assumed setting, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval relevance as permission filtering. The input is an operations account searching "skincare category authorization" in the knowledge base search test; the comparison object is whether that account holds read permission on the qualification file. A retrieval hit alone does not mean the account may read the file, because the relevance score is not an authorization basis.
- Treating team administrator status as an exemption from file-level permission. The input is a team administrator account attempting to open the qualification file detail; the comparison object is that file's collection collaborator list. If the administrator is not on the list, the file remains unreadable, because team-level management covers only team resources.
- Treating an authorization period as equivalent to transaction coverage. The input is the qualification text "validity from January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025" together with the transaction date March 10, 2026; the comparison object is the period range on the same field. The two do not fall in the same period, so the draft sentence "this qualification covers the present transaction" is unsupported and the evidence gap remains.
How to verify the setup
- Search the same qualification file with an authorized account and an unauthorized account. The input is the same query in the knowledge base search test from both accounts; the comparison object is the file list and detail each account actually sees. The condition is met when the authorized account sees the file, the unauthorized account does not, and the paginated list result is correct.
- Check the field correspondence between the draft sentence and the source text. The input is the draft sentence "Ask operations to state in the appeal statement that this qualification covers the present transaction" together with the qualification text and the transaction date; the comparison object is whether the authorization period and the transaction date fall in the same period and the same field. The condition is met when a non-overlapping period marks the draft sentence as unsupported, and a missing authorization scope in the source marks it as pending verification.
- Check the downstream design with an empty-result input. The input is the explicit paper input
[]; the comparison object is how the downstream appeal-statement generation step handles an empty retrieval result. The condition is met when the downstream step does not read an empty result as no violation and does not auto-fill a conclusion; the actual returned content depends on observation, and no invented rule is assumed to return an empty array.