Dealer rebate calculation: shared access for staff training

What the documents look like

Rebate calculation happens after sales, and its core is policy interpretation and financial treatment. The working data comes from ERP sales, dealer payments, contract ledgers, and the finance system. The daily documents are rebate policies, sales attainment tables, reconciliation statements, and red-letter invoices.

For store service and internal training, the rebate policy wording, attainment data, and invoice offset requirements need to reach store staff and internal personnel. Sharing and embedding determine the form in which these materials are opened and the authorization state under which external or internal people open them. A no-login window is created from the application details under publish channels, and the complete link generated by the system is copied. The link name is used for record display only and does not function as business authorization. Identity verification is limited to the commercial edition scope, and the official interface response uses success and uid to decide whether the user may continue. Anonymous conversation records depend on the same device and same browser; cross-device use requires separately designed identity and session management.

Constraints at the shared access step

Rebate materials contain sales volume, payments, and policy wording. The expiration time, QPM, and points cap of a sharing entry are set according to the usage scope and checked against the actual version; some parameters are supported only in the commercial edition. The identity verification root address is configured only to the root. FastGPT sends requests to specific endpoints under that address at initialization, before conversation start, and at conversation end, with token=[authToken] carried in the body. The uid must be returned and must not contain the characters |, /, or \, and its length must not exceed 255 bytes; otherwise the Invalid UID error is returned. Retrieval and similarity do not carry permission or entity isolation; a similarity setting does not exclude unrelated business or unauthorized records. The conversation record boundary depends on the same device and same browser, and cross-device records require separately designed identity and session management.

Hypothetical drill sample: a brand rebate policy document states: "For the third quarter of 2025, the dealer payment attainment rate is calculated on the amount confirmed in the dealer reconciliation statement, and the offset after returns follows the finance system." A proposed handover request reads: "Send the link to this policy to the dealer finance contact and let them check the attainment rate themselves." The request does not state the authorization scope or the identity verification method, and the link name itself does not constitute authorization.

Configuration and implementation checks

The table below centers on the sample above and lists officially documented settings or implementation check items related to this page's feature and primary task.

Three common errors

1. Treating the link name as business authorization. The input is the copied sharing link; the comparison object is the authorization scope in the sample phrase "let them check the attainment rate themselves"; the observable result is whether an unauthorized party can open the link and check the attainment rate. The link name is used for record display only, and the authorization state must be decided by the success and uid returned by the identity verification interface.
2. Treating similarity as a permission filter. The input is a retrieval request and a similarity setting; the comparison object is whether unauthorized records should appear in the sample; the observable result is whether the returned content contains unauthorized records. Similarity is a relevance parameter and does not carry entity or permission isolation.
3. Treating the anonymous local identifier as a cross-device session. The input is an open request with the same authToken on different devices; the comparison object is the conversation record boundary description; the observable result is whether the same uid records can be pulled after switching devices. The anonymous identifier only guarantees the same device and same browser.

How to verify the setup

1. Identity verification check. Input the authToken and root address from the sample; compare the success and uid format returned by the interface; observe that success is true and that uid does not contain |, /, or \ and does not exceed 255 bytes. When success is not true, the message or msg is shown, and this is not treated as passing.
2. Authorization boundary check. Input the proposed handover request; compare whether the request states the authorization scope and the identity verification method; observe whether the request makes clear which parties may open the material and which fields they may check. When the authorization scope is not stated, record it as pending verification rather than as authorized.
3. Record boundary check. Input an operation that opens the same authToken on different devices; compare against the conversation record boundary description; observe whether records are lost after switching devices or clearing the browser cache. When records are lost, record the gap and do not claim that cross-device sessions have been implemented.

Related reading

• guide/build/publish/link
• FastGPT shared access