What the documents look like
Chain store price and display audits happen during ordinary trading periods, so the material is operational rather than onboarding-related. The working set for a contract and transaction material comparison task draws on store visit photographs, price tag lists, display standards and rectification notices, with source data from the supervision system, POS price lists, store cameras and head office promotion calendars. The comparison task places store visit records, price tag evidence and promotion calendar files inside one authorization boundary, and any comparison conclusion can only rest on material that is actually readable by the person performing the comparison.
The material set updates weekly or monthly. That cadence affects which comparison window is chosen. It does not change the access control logic described on this page.
FastGPT access control combines member permissions with department and group permissions. Department and group permissions are combined as a union, and member permissions take the highest priority. Resource permissions are set separately for team, app, knowledge base and file/folder (collection). Knowledge base file-level permission is off by default. In the off state, collection readability matches the knowledge base and the system queries no collection permission records. Once enabled, each file and folder receives a permission snapshot, and list, detail and retrieval recall each authenticate record by record. Knowledge base permission always remains a threshold, and collection permission cannot bypass it. A team administrator does not bypass file-level permission, while the team owner and system root are treated as holding full permission over every file. Retrieval recall filters by the files readable by the current member and takes effect only when authentication runs as the current member identity. A scenario that preselects a knowledge base without member-identity authentication performs no file-level filtering. Document classification, tags and retrieval relevance do not constitute access authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a regional supervisor, Supervisor A, in the operations department of a chain brand holds read permission on the knowledge base "East China store visit material". File-level permission is enabled on that knowledge base. The collaborator list of the file "March 2025 price tag verification list" includes Supervisor A with read permission. The collaborator list of the file "March 2025 promotion calendar notice" does not include Supervisor A. Supervisor A submits a draft sentence: "According to the March 2025 promotion calendar notice, all drinks were half price for the second cup from 8 March to 10 March, and store price tags were executed on this basis." Pending request: Supervisor A requests that this draft sentence be written into the comparison conclusion and that the promotion calendar notice be cited as its basis.
Constraints at the access controls step
The first constraint is the file-level permission switch itself. While the switch is off, collection permission does not take effect and per-file isolation is unavailable. Only after the switch is on does each file and folder carry a snapshot, and list, detail and retrieval recall authenticate against that snapshot. The knowledge base permission remains a threshold in both states, so a file-level grant cannot produce access for a member who lacks read permission on the knowledge base.
The second constraint concerns identity. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission; knowledge base and file access still follow their respective collaborator configurations. The team owner and system root are treated as holding full permission over all files. A role name is not a substitute for testing resource access against the actual member identity.
The third constraint concerns retrieval authentication. Retrieval recall filters by the files readable by the current member and applies only when authentication runs as the current member identity. A workflow that preselects a knowledge base without member-identity authentication performs no file-level filtering and still recalls by knowledge base permission. Similarity or relevance settings in retrieval configuration do not exclude unauthorized files; whether an unauthorized file is recalled depends on the file-level permission snapshot and member-identity authentication, not on a retrieval score. Retrieval is not authorization.
The fourth constraint concerns state. A pending request is not an approval, and a draft sentence that has not been written is not a completed write. The draft sentence and the pending request do not demonstrate that Supervisor A holds write permission on the comparison conclusion file, and they do not make the promotion calendar notice visible to Supervisor A.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base file-level permission switch | On | In the off state collection permission does not take effect and per-file isolation is unavailable; when on, authentication runs file by file |
| Price tag verification list collaborator entry | Supervisor A, read permission | Supervisor A needs to read this file to complete the comparison; compare against Supervisor A's actual member identity |
| Promotion calendar notice collaborator entry | Supervisor A not included | This file has not authorized Supervisor A to read it; compare against Supervisor A's actual readable file list |
| Retrieval authentication mode | Authenticate as the current member identity | A preselected knowledge base without member-identity authentication performs no file-level filtering; compare against the authentication mode actually used by the request |
| Draft sentence write operation | Requires write permission on the target file | Write permission can change file content; compare against Supervisor A's actual permission on that file |
| Knowledge base read permission threshold | Held by Supervisor A | Collection permission cannot bypass the knowledge base threshold; compare against the knowledge base collaborator record for Supervisor A |
These entries describe documented settings or implementation checks tied to this page. They are not a record of a completed deployment, and no value here should be read as an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval relevance as a permission filter. Similarity or relevance settings in retrieval configuration do not exclude unauthorized files. Whether an unauthorized file is recalled depends on the file-level permission snapshot and member-identity authentication, not on a retrieval score. A relevance score is not a category, entity or permission filter, and it does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records.
- Treating team administrator identity as grounds to bypass file-level permission. A team administrator does not bypass file-level permission; knowledge base and file access still follow their respective collaborator configurations. Only the team owner and system root are treated as holding full permission over all files.
- Treating a pending or draft state as a completed write or authorization. The draft sentence has not been written, and the pending request is under review. Neither demonstrates that Supervisor A holds write permission on the comparison conclusion file, and neither makes the promotion calendar notice visible to Supervisor A.
How to verify the setup
- Input: Supervisor A, authenticated as the current member identity, searches the "East China store visit material" knowledge base for "promotion calendar". Comparison: whether the retrieval result includes "March 2025 promotion calendar notice". Expected: the file does not appear in the result, because its collaborator list does not include Supervisor A. If the file appears, authentication did not filter by file-level permission, and the retrieval authentication mode requires inspection. This is an expected observation, not a recorded test result.
- Input: Supervisor A attempts to read "March 2025 price tag verification list". Comparison: Supervisor A's actual readable file list against the collaborator list of that file. Expected: Supervisor A can read the file, because its collaborator list includes Supervisor A with read permission. If the file is not readable, check the collaborator record for Supervisor A on that file and the knowledge base read permission threshold.
- Input: the draft sentence and pending request submitted by Supervisor A. Comparison: whether the "March 2025 promotion calendar notice" cited by the draft sentence falls inside Supervisor A's readable file range, and whether Supervisor A holds write permission on the comparison conclusion file. Expected: the notice is outside Supervisor A's readable range, so the cited basis is not visible to Supervisor A. Until Supervisor A receives read permission on that notice or a member with the corresponding permission supplies the basis, the cited basis of the draft sentence remains unsupported, and the write operation requires separate verification of write permission. The missing evidence remains missing rather than being resolved by assumption.