What the documents look like
Group-buy presale collection takes orders first and organizes procurement and fulfillment afterward. The working materials are the presale product table, the collection result, the procurement plan, and the cut-off notice. Contract and transaction material comparison places these materials on one time basis and checks whether the subject, object, quantity, and status agree. These materials update daily or per session, so comparison uses the version at the cut-off point.
Access control and data isolation address a specific problem: the same material has different visible scope for different roles, and a comparison conclusion can rest only on materials the member is authorized to access. The four document types carry different commercial meaning. The presale product table states planned collection quantities. The collection result states actual group-formation quantities. The procurement plan states what purchasing will order. The cut-off notice marks the point after which orders no longer change. A comparison that mixes a planned quantity with an actual quantity, or treats a quotation validity date as a supply deadline, produces a conclusion the source materials do not support.
Constraints at the access controls step
Knowledge base permission is always the threshold. Collection (file or folder) permission cannot bypass knowledge base permission. File-level permission is off by default; in the off state, collection readability matches the knowledge base exactly, and the system queries no collection permission records. After it is enabled, each file or folder generates a permission snapshot, and the list, the detail view, and retrieval recall each authenticate against that snapshot entry by entry.
Retrieval recall filters by files the current member can read only when authentication runs by current member identity. A workflow that preselects a knowledge base without member-identity authentication does not apply file-level filtering and still recalls by knowledge base permission. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission. Team owners and system root are treated as holding all permissions on all files. A relevance score is not a permission filter, and a retrieval setting cannot replace an authorization judgment.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A platform operations team maintains one knowledge base containing the files "March 2025 presale product table," "March 2025 collection result," "March 2025 procurement plan," and "March 2025 cut-off notice." Member A holds read permission on the knowledge base, holds read permission on "March 2025 procurement plan," and has no collaborator configuration on "March 2025 collection result." Two source sentences: "The presale product table states that for the March 18 session, planned collection quantity for product A is 500 units." "The collection result states that for the March 18 session, actual group-formation quantity for product A is 480 units." Draft sentence to be judged: "For the March 18 session, the procurement quantity for product A is 500 units." This draft sentence concerns the procurement plan. Member A can read the procurement plan but cannot read the collection result, so the relationship between actual group-formation quantity and procurement quantity cannot be checked.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base file-level permission switch | Enabled | Distinguishes member-visible scope per file; compare against the off state, where all collections inherit knowledge base permission |
| Member A permission on the knowledge base | Can use | Serves as the access threshold; compare visible file list against an account with no knowledge base permission |
| Member A role on the procurement plan | Read permission | Allows viewing procurement plan content; compare executable operations against write permission and administrator |
| Member A role on the collection result | No collaborator added | Keeps it unreadable; compare retrieval recall against an account granted read permission |
| Retrieval authentication mode | Authenticated by current member identity | Compare filtering behavior against a workflow that preselects the knowledge base without member-identity authentication |
| Collaborator submission semantics | Full overwrite | Submitted list is the final result; compare against an append-only expectation to confirm whether the creator record is retained |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval relevance as a permission filter. Input: search as Member A for "March 18 group-formation quantity." Compare returned entries against Member A's actual readable file list. If collection result content appears, retrieval did not filter by file-level permission, and the authentication mode must be checked against current member identity. The collection result is not readable by Member A, so its content must not be recalled.
- Treating a pending review status as an existing operation permission. Input: a procurement plan change request. Compare the request status against Member A's read permission on the procurement plan. A request in pending review does not show that Member A holds permission to modify the procurement plan; the actual role configuration must be checked separately. Read permission allows viewing content and does not by itself authorize modification.
- Treating a quotation validity date as a supply deadline. Input: a supplier quotation stating "valid until March 20." Compare the quotation validity date against the supply date agreed in the procurement plan. These are different fields. The quotation validity date does not yield the supply deadline, and the supply terms must be checked separately in the procurement plan.
How to verify the setup
- View the file list as Member A. Compare the list content against all files in the knowledge base. The collection result should not appear; the procurement plan should appear. If the collection result appears, check whether a collaborator was added to that file by mistake, or whether the knowledge base file-level permission switch is in the off state. This check uses the hypothetical paper sample above.
- Run the knowledge base search test as Member A with the input "March 18 group-formation quantity." Compare the recall result against Member A's readable file scope. Collection result content should not be recalled. If it is recalled, check whether the search entry authenticates by current member identity, and verify the collaborator configuration on the collection result. A recall result that includes unreadable content indicates a filtering gap, not a relevance problem.
- View the same knowledge base as an account with no knowledge base permission. Compare the visible file list; it should be empty or show only a no-permission notice. If any file content appears, check whether that account obtained knowledge base permission through a member group or organization, and verify the permission union result. Member permission takes highest priority, and department and group permissions combine by union at lower priority.
These checks use the hypothetical paper exercise sample as input. Actual results require observation and recording under an account holding the corresponding permissions. Where material is missing or status is not stated, the item remains pending verification. A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.