What the documents look like
Multi-store matrix management places cross-store authorization and price order ahead of single-store traffic efficiency. The working materials for store service and internal training are a store authorization list, a price control table, a channel-conflict complaint form, and a monthly sales report. The authorization list and the price control table are the two documents that decide which stores and which staff may be covered by a training session.
The sharing and embedding step rests on one documented fact: a no-login window produces a temporary address that any internet user can open, and the address itself carries no business authorization. Cost for that address is charged to the team that owns the application. The system generates a localId per user to identify the user and pull conversation records from the cloud. That localId only holds within the same device and the same browser; switching devices or clearing browser cache loses the records. Only the most recent 30 days and 20 records can be pulled.
Constraints at the shared access step
Hypothetical drill sample. Material text one: a brand e-commerce department's Store Authorization List states "Authorized stores: Store A, Store B; authorization period: 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025; authorization subject: Dealer Jia." Material text two: a note on the same list states "Store C is not included in this list; channel operations to supplement materials." Proposed handover request under review: "Send the no-login window share link to Dealer Jia for staff training covering Store A, Store B, and Store C; the link contains authToken=dealerjia."
Decision points. The list names Store A and Store B only. Store C sits in a pending-supplement state, and a pending supplement does not constitute authorization. The authToken in the share link is a user credential generated by the third-party system; only after the authentication interface returns a uid is that uid used to pull and save conversation records. The interface returns whether validation succeeded and the uid, and nothing else. Authorization scope still comes from the Store Authorization List and the Price Control Table. The part of the request that covers Store C therefore lacks an authorization basis and is unsupported until the list is completed.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below works from the sample above and lists settings the official documents describe plus implementation checks. The values are hypothetical starting points for this drill, chosen so they can be compared against the authorization scope in the materials. They are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Check method |
|---|---|---|
| Expiration time | Set to 31 December 2025 | Compare with the last day of the authorization period in the Store Authorization List; any later date needs renewed confirmation |
| QPM | No specific value entered | Check against actual training concurrency; this parameter is the maximum access count per user per minute |
| Points cap | No specific value entered | Check which team bears the cost; some parameters are limited by edition |
| Identity verification | Enter the third-party root address | Continue only when the interface returns success true and a uid in valid format |
| Share link parameter | Append authToken | The authentication interface body carries token=[authToken] |
| Conversation record boundary | Relies on localId | Cross-device scenarios need separate identity and session management |
Three common errors
- Treating the share link identifier as business authorization. In the sample, authToken=dealerjia only means the third-party system can validate that user. Whether Store C is authorized depends on the Store Authorization List, and a store not listed is unsupported.
- Treating the success value from the identity verification interface as a channel authorization result. The interface returns only whether validation succeeded and the uid. Authorization scope still comes from the Store Authorization List and the Price Control Table.
- Treating the anonymous localId record pull range as complete session coverage. The documents state that only the most recent 30 days and 20 records can be pulled, and that switching devices or clearing cache loses them. Training records cannot be assumed complete on this basis.
How to verify the setup
- Input material text one and material text two, then compare the three-store scope in the proposed request against Store A and Store B as listed. If the request includes Store C while the list still shows a pending supplement, the request is unsupported and the materials must be completed first.
- Input authToken=dealerjia and compare the success value and uid returned by the authentication interface. Validation passes when success is true and the uid contains none of the characters "|", "/", or "\" and does not exceed 255 bytes. When success is not true, follow the returned message or msg and do not continue.
- Input a paper empty result [] and check whether the downstream design handles it as an empty reference. Do not claim that a given rule's retrieval necessarily returns empty. Retrieval and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. For libraries across different vector models, check identifiers first and exclude non-matching ones, then record what is actually observed.
This page addresses only multi-store management, store service and internal training, and sharing and embedding. It does not treat retrieval or a form as an authorization action.