What the documents look like
Store count and loss-control work centres on book-to-physical variance and shrinkage handling. The material set named in the brief covers count sheets, variance analysis notes, write-off approval forms and monitoring access records. The typical parties are the loss-prevention department, store warehouse keepers and finance reviewers. Data sources include POS inventory, WMS, monitoring systems and the SB/T count specification.
This page addresses one task only: comparison of contract and transaction materials, at the access-control and data-isolation step. The count sheet, variance analysis note and write-off approval form are the documents that carry the SKU, quantity, time range and approval state needed for comparison. Material classification, tagging and retrieval relevance organise content; they do not decide who may read or write a record. Access authorisation is decided separately by resource permissions.
Constraints at the access controls step
Knowledge base permission is a threshold. Collection permission cannot bypass knowledge base permission. When file-level permission is off, collection readability matches the knowledge base and the system queries no collection permission records. When it is on, each file or folder generates a permission snapshot, and lists, details and retrieval recall are authorised item by item. Retrieval recall filters unreadable files only when authentication runs against the current member identity; a workflow that preselects a knowledge base without member-identity authentication does not apply file-level filtering. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission. Team owners and system root are treated as holding all file permissions. Similarity and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. Collaborator configuration uses full-overwrite semantics, and the submitted list must contain the current creator.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A store loss-prevention department submits a paper comparison task. The material text reads: "2025 March count sheet, line 47: SKU A, book quantity 12, physical count 9, variance -3. The variance analysis note records this variance as pending verification. The write-off approval form records 3 units as pending review." The draft sentence under review reads: "The above 3-unit variance is confirmed as written off; file the write-off approval form into effective contract materials and synchronise to finance review." Decision points: both the variance analysis note and the write-off approval form are in pending states, the draft sentence treats pending review as confirmed, and the synchronisation request is a business action requiring a separate system implementation.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented setting or implementation check | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base read permission | Knowledge base "usable" is the threshold for calling and reading | Check whether the loss-prevention member holds read permission on that knowledge base |
| File-level permission switch | Off by default; enabling requires knowledge base manage permission, and the switch is set only after materialisation succeeds | Confirm switch state before treating sample materials as item-by-item authorised |
| Collection read permission | When on, authorised item by item against the snapshot; lists filter by current member | Check whether the count sheet and variance analysis note are readable by the drafter |
| Collection write permission | Modify content, update, synchronise, adjust training parameters | Check write-permission ownership before filing or rewriting materials |
| Retrieval recall authentication | Filters unauthorised files when authentication runs against current member identity | Check whether the retrieval entry authenticates by member identity |
| External system permission | External interface authentication and FastGPT resource permission are verified separately | Synchronising to finance review is a separate system implementation, not executed on this page |
Three common errors
- Treating pending review as confirmed. In the sample, the write-off approval form records 3 units as pending review, while the draft sentence states confirmed write-off. Input: the write-off approval form text. Comparison: the approval state field. Observable result: whether the state value matches the draft sentence wording.
- Treating retrieval relevance as a permission filter. In the sample, the count sheet and variance analysis note require item-by-item authorisation by member. If a retrieval score replaces the read-permission check, the input is the member identity and file identifier, the comparison object is the snapshot permission record, and the observable result is whether unauthorised files appear in the list or recall.
- Treating a full-overwrite submission as an incremental addition. Collaborator configuration submits a list that is the final result. In the sample, if the submitted list omits the creator, the input is the proposed collaborator list, the comparison object is the current creator record, and the observable result is whether the submission is rejected.
How to verify the setup
- Take the sample draft sentence as input and compare the approval state field of the write-off approval form against the draft sentence wording. When both are pending review, the draft sentence does not hold and requires revision. When the state field is not recorded, record the item as unsupported.
- Take the sample material identifiers and the drafter's member identity as input, and compare the read-permission records in the file-level permission snapshot. The observable result is that unreadable files do not appear in the list or recall. When the switch is off, collection permission is not queried separately and the state is recorded as inherited.
- Take the proposed collaborator list as input and compare whether the list contains the current creator. The observable result is that a list containing the creator passes and an omitted creator is rejected. Synchronising to finance review is a separate system implementation; this page records it as pending downstream implementation and does not judge it as executed.