What the documents look like
Community group-buy leader operations center on community nodes and commission settlement. The working materials include leader agreements, commission tables, pickup lists and community announcements. Order details and after-sales records update daily and per group. In the contract and transaction material comparison task, the terms recorded in a leader agreement are checked item by item against the actual records in the commission table and pickup list, to judge whether the same subject, the same period and the same field carry consistent values. Materials sit across the group-buy back office, leader chat groups and fulfillment sites. Participants include the platform, leader business development staff and fulfillment sites. Any party reading or writing beyond its authorization can cause commission miscalculation or pickup disputes.
A second characteristic shapes this page. File-level permission is a commercial-edition feature of the platform. By default, all files and folders inside a knowledge base share the permission of the knowledge base itself. Only after file-level permission is switched on can an individual file or folder receive its own collaborators. The knowledge base permission remains a threshold: file-level permission cannot bypass it. A user granted access to a single file still needs read permission on the knowledge base to reach that file.
A third characteristic matters for retrieval. After file-level permission is enabled, knowledge base retrieval filters by the files the current member can read, and files beyond authorization are not recalled. This applies only when authentication runs by the current member identity. In a workflow where the knowledge base is preselected and authentication does not run by member identity, file-level filtering does not apply and recall still follows knowledge base permission. File classification, tags and retrieval relevance do not equal access authorization, and retrieval settings cannot replace permission configuration.
Constraints at the access controls step
Permission judgment first checks the individual member permission, then checks the permissions of the departments and groups the member belongs to and takes their union. The final permission combines those results. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission. System root and the team owner are treated as holding all permissions on all files. The creator of a file or folder cannot be granted or modified through collaborator configuration; a submitted collaborator list must contain the current creator, or the submission is rejected. Collaborator configuration uses full-overwrite semantics, so the submitted list is the final result. Deletion of a file or folder is limited to the creator; collaborators with administrator or write permission cannot delete it.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A platform signs a leader agreement with Leader A, specifying that the March 2025 commission rate is 8 percent of order amount. The commission table records Leader A's March order amount as 10,000 yuan and commission as 800 yuan. A proposed sentence reads: "Leader A's March commission is settled at 8 percent, amount 800 yuan, and the agreement and commission table are consistent." A pending request reads: "Please open Leader A's March commission table to a newly onboarded BD for viewing." The agreement and the commission table belong to the same knowledge base. This BD has not been added as a collaborator on any file.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Type | Relation to this page's task |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base manage permission | Resource permission | Determines whether file-level permission can be enabled and collaborators configured |
| File-level permission switch | Feature switch | In the off state, collection permission inherits the knowledge base; only after enabling can a single file be configured |
| Collection read permission | Collaborator role | Controls whether the BD can view the leader agreement and commission table |
| Collection write permission | Collaborator role | Controls whether commission table content can be modified |
| Collection administrator | Collaborator role | Controls whether collaborators on that file can be assigned |
| Creator | Special identity | Deletion is limited to the creator, and the collaborator list must contain the creator |
The hypothetical starting point for this exercise is: add the BD as a read-permission collaborator on the commission table file, and compare that with adding no collaborator at all, observing whether the BD can see the commission table in the file list. This starting point serves this paper check only and is not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval relevance as permission filtering. Input the query "Leader A commission" and compare the returned results with the BD's readable file scope. When the BD holds no read permission on the commission table, that file is expected not to appear in the recall results. A similarity score does not carry the duty of permission filtering, so a returned file would be recorded as an unauthorized recall observation, and the file-level permission switch and collaborator configuration would then be checked.
- Treating a pending request as granted authorization. Input the pending request "Please open Leader A's March commission table to a newly onboarded BD for viewing" and compare the BD's current collaborator list with that request. The request sits in a pending state and has produced no collaborator record, so the judgment is not supported and the evidence gap must be recorded.
- Treating team administrator identity as a bypass for file-level permission. Input the team administrator identity and compare it with the collaborator configuration of the commission table. A team administrator does not bypass file-level permission and still authenticates against the collaborator configuration of that file. Team-level management permission covers only the team's own resources such as member groups and organizations; knowledge bases and files still authenticate by their own collaborator configuration.
How to verify the setup
- Input the leader agreement text and the commission table text from the hypothetical sample, and compare the values of the same subject, the same period and the same field. The agreement states 8 percent and the commission table states 800 yuan, so the two are consistent and the proposed sentence "the agreement and commission table are consistent" is supported. If the commission table stated 700 yuan, the same field would carry mutually exclusive values and constitute a contradiction. A field that is not stated, or evidence that covers only a related stage, is recorded as not supported or pending verification, not as a denial or a conflict.
- Input the pending request "Please open Leader A's March commission table to a newly onboarded BD for viewing" and compare the BD's current collaborator list with that request. The request is in a pending state and the collaborator list does not contain the BD, so the judgment is not supported and the evidence gap is recorded. A pending review does not demonstrate the absence of an operation permission, and it does not demonstrate that permission was granted.
- Input the retrieval query "Leader A commission" and compare the returned results with the BD's readable file scope. When the BD holds no read permission on the commission table, the expectation is that this file does not appear in the recall results. If the file is actually returned, record the unauthorized recall observation and check the file-level permission switch and the collaborator configuration. A retrieval check states the observation and the failure branch; it does not guarantee a first hit, full recall, or that an unrelated query returns empty. A relevance score is not a category, entity or permission filter, and retrieval does not perform authorization.