What the documents look like
Group-buy leader operations manage community nodes and commission, and do not perform cold-chain quality inspection. The working documents are leader agreements, commission tables, pickup lists and community announcements. The data sources are the group-buy backend, leader community groups, order details and after-sales records. In store service and internal training, these materials are handed to leaders or site staff through a share entry point, so the identity, validity period and authorization state recorded in the documents determine whether a share is usable. The supplied brief gives an update frequency of daily and per group; this page does not derive batch synchronization or real-time triggering from that frequency.
A share entry point is created from the application details, under publish channels, as a no-login window, and the system generates a complete link that is copied for use. The link name is only for record display. The link identifier is not a business authorization. Among the parameters, expiry time, QPM, point cap and identity verification are partly configurable only in the commercial edition. Identity verification is the root address of a POST request. After that address is filled in, initialization, conversation start and conversation end each send a request to a specific interface under it. The server returns success and uid, and FastGPT decides from success whether the user may continue. The uid is the unique user credential, must be returned, and must be a string that excludes the characters "|", "/" and "\" and is no longer than 255 bytes; otherwise an Invalid UID error is returned. Conversation records depend on the same device and the same browser, and the no-login window allows pulling only the 20 records of the last 30 days. Retrieval and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation. Retrieval is not authorization.
Hypothetical drill sample: a platform operator shares an internal training document with a fulfillment site. The document text is: "Leader agreement number T-2024-018, party A is a community group-buy platform, party B is a fulfillment site, signing date is 1 March 2024, agreement status is pending review." The proposed handover request is: "Please give the no-login share link corresponding to this agreement to party B for store service training, and set the link validity period to long-term." Point to decide: the agreement status is pending review, and the link validity period and authorization scope need to be consistent with the agreement status.
Constraints at the shared access step
The main constraint is that the material state and the share state must be compared on the same subject, the same period and the same field. Pending review does not show that operation permission is absent, and it is not approval. Signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three different facts. The sample records only a signing date and a status of pending review, so the evidence gap stays open. The proposed request asks for a long-term link, and no document field states the agreement validity period, so the comparison cannot be completed from the supplied text alone.
A second constraint is that the link name and the link identifier are display and access artifacts. Copying the link does not create agreement effect, and the name does not establish the identity of the party receiving it. The authorization boundary has to come from the agreement record and from the identity verification interface, not from the link itself.
A third constraint is the record boundary. Records pulled through the no-login window rely on a local identifier tied to one device and one browser. Switching devices or clearing browser cache loses those records. Cross-device identity and session management require a separate design, and this page does not assume a scheduled trigger or a hidden control.
A fourth constraint is the scope of identity verification. It is documented for the commercial edition. The root address is configured, not a full request path. The token is appended to the share link as an extra query parameter named authToken, and FastGPT carries token=[authToken] in the body of the verification request. The finish interface is optional and has no required return value; its response data follows the chat interface format with an added token, and the fields of interest are totalPoints and token.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation checks related to this page's documents. The numeric values are hypothetical starting points for this drill, chosen so that they can be compared against fields in the sample, and they are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point in this drill | Basis and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Store training share entry | Used only for record display; compare with agreement number T-2024-018 |
| Expiry time | Same span as the agreement validity period | After that time the link cannot be used; compare with the signing date and status recorded in the material |
| QPM | Hypothetical starting point 10 | Maximum access count per user per minute; compare with the number of training participants |
| Point cap | Hypothetical starting point 1000 | Maximum billable data produced by the link; check against the team that bears the cost |
| Identity verification | Root address filled in | Commercial edition scope; judge by the success and uid returned by the interface |
| View quoted snippets | Off | Compare with whether the training material permits showing quoted sources |
The expiry time starting point is chosen because the sample records a signing date of 1 March 2024, and the drill needs a bounded comparison value. The QPM and point cap starting points are chosen only to give the drill a number to compare against participant count and cost ownership; no documented default exists for them. The identity verification row is an implementation check: the init interface returns success and uid, the start interface returns success and uid, and the finish interface is optional.
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review agreement as an effective authorization. In the sample the status is pending review and the request asks for delivery of the link. Pending review does not show that operation permission is absent, and it is not approval. The authorization scope of the share link still needs to match the agreement status, and the missing validity-period field remains unknown.
- Treating the link identifier as business authorization. The link name is only for record display, and copying the link does not produce agreement effect. The receiving party's identity has to be established through the identity verification interface and its returned uid.
- Treating cross-device records as automatically available. Records pulled through the no-login window depend on the same device and the same browser, and switching devices or clearing cache loses them. Cross-device identity and session management require a separate design, and this page does not assume one exists.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the proposed handover request. Compare the agreement status field with the authorization scope of the share link. When the material records a status of pending review and the request asks for delivery of the link, record the authorization gap and do not carry out delivery. This is a paper check and was not executed.
- Input the signing date recorded in the sample and the hypothetical expiry time. Compare the two. When the link expiry time falls after the agreement validity period recorded in the material, record the inconsistency and do not treat the link as usable. The sample does not state an agreement validity period, so this comparison remains open until that field is supplied.
- Input the identity verification root address and the success and uid values returned by the interface. Compare whether success is true and whether uid meets the character and length requirements. When success is not true, the returned message is shown as an error and the conversation does not continue. When success is true but uid contains "|", "/" or "\", or exceeds 255 bytes, an Invalid UID error is returned and the conversation does not continue. This is a paper check and was not executed.