What the documents look like
Marketplace category access review happens before a listing is published or a store is onboarded. The review object is the operating entity and its authorization chain, not the store's review score. For store service and internal training, four document types are handled: business license, trademark registration certificate, brand authorization chain, and industry license. These materials are collected again at each onboarding or category addition rather than on a fixed schedule.
The brand authorization chain is the slowest item to assemble because it links a brand owner, an authorized entity, and a store across a defined region and period. When the chain is incomplete, the onboarding application is rejected or the category cannot be published. In the sharing and embedding step, store staff distribute qualification materials or training content through a no-login window link. The no-login window is created under App Detail, Publish Channel. The system generates a complete link. The link identifier itself only supports access and does not serve as a business authorization credential.
Identity verification is limited to the commercial edition. When a third-party system is connected, access is decided by the success status and uid returned by the official interfaces. The anonymous local identifier depends on the same device and the same browser. Switching devices or clearing browser cache loses the records, and the system only allows pulling the most recent 20 records within 30 days. Cross-device training records and qualification handover require separate identity and session management.
Constraints at the shared access step
Qualification materials are bound to a specific entity. The business license and trademark registration certificate correspond to a named operating entity. The authorization chain corresponds to a layered relationship between a brand owner and a store. The identity of a link visitor and the entity that owns the materials must be checked by hand. Retrieval or form collection does not produce authorization effect.
A pending review state does not show that an operation right is missing. An offered option is not execution. An unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Missing evidence remains missing.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: A store specialist plans to share a qualification material check link with a regional training group. The material text for checking is: "Business license registered entity: XX City XX Trading Co., Ltd.; unified social credit code: 91XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX; business scope includes prepackaged food sales; valid until March 31, 2027. Trademark registration certificate registrant: XX City XX Trading Co., Ltd.; approved goods class 30; registration valid until August 14, 2026. Brand authorization chain: brand owner XX Food Co., Ltd. authorizes XX City XX Trading Co., Ltd. to sell in the East China region, authorization period January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025." The draft sentence to be judged is: "All qualification materials in this link are within the validity period and can be safely used for this category access submission."
Configuration and implementation checks
The settings below relate to the checking needs of this page's sample. Some parameters are limited by edition. Actual values depend on the deployed version.
| Configuration item | Setting or check action in this page's sample | Description and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Enter "East China qualification check - training use" | Used only for record display, does not constitute authorization |
| Expiration time | Hypothetical trial starting point set to 7 days after sharing | Chosen because the training cycle usually completes within one week; compare with material validity to confirm coverage |
| QPM | Check as the maximum access count per user per minute | The value must be confirmed against the actual version and usage scope; no default is presumed |
| Points cap | Check the maximum billing data produced by this link | Costs belong to the team that owns the application; some parameters are limited by edition |
| Identity verification | Enter the identity check root address; decide by success and uid returned by official interfaces | Commercial edition scope; uid is a string without specific characters and no more than 255 bytes |
| View quote snippets | Check against the system introduction whether display is enabled | Related to the visible range of qualification material text |
Three common errors
- Treating the share link identifier as business authorization. Link accessibility only means technical reachability. It does not mean the visitor has the right to submit category access on behalf of the material's registered entity. The check compares the link visitor identity with the material registered entity. The observable result is "consistent," "inconsistent," or "insufficient evidence."
- Treating a pending review state as granted authorization. In the sample, the brand authorization chain ends December 31, 2025. If the draft sentence claims all materials are within the validity period, each material's validity date must be compared with the planned submission date. If the authorization chain expires before the submission date, the sentence is not supported.
- Treating retrieval results as permission isolation. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not exclude unrelated entities or unauthorized records. The check first confirms whether the retrieval scope covers the target materials, then manually compares the entity name and unified social credit code. A high similarity score does not establish that materials belong to the same entity.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three material texts from the sample and the draft sentence "All qualification materials in this link are within the validity period and can be safely used for this category access submission." Compare each material's validity date with the planned submission date. The business license runs to March 31, 2027, the trademark registration certificate to August 14, 2026, and the authorization chain to December 31, 2025. If the planned submission date falls after December 31, 2025, the authorization chain has expired and the draft sentence is not supported. If the date falls before, all three are within the validity period and the sentence is supported. The observable result is the item-by-item date comparison conclusion.
- Input the business license registered entity and the trademark registration certificate registrant from the sample. Compare whether the two names are identical. Both are "XX City XX Trading Co., Ltd.," so the entity is consistent. Then input the authorized party in the brand authorization chain and compare whether it is the same entity. The observable result is the character-by-character name field comparison conclusion.
- Input the authorization period and region scope from the authorization chain in the sample. Compare whether the claimed "this category access submission" falls within the authorization period and region. If the submitting entity is an East China region store and the submission date is before December 31, 2025, the authorization scope covers it. The observable result is the separate check conclusions for the period condition and the region condition. Any missing item is recorded as pending verification.