What the documents look like
Price and display auditing for chain stores happens during ordinary trading periods, where the focus is sustained execution of standards rather than launch support. The working materials come from a supervision system, POS price lists, store cameras and headquarters promotion calendars. Day-to-day documents include store visit photographs, price tag lists, display standards and rectification notices, with weekly or monthly update cycles.
This shapes the sharing and embedding step. Store visit photographs and price tag lists record on-site facts. Rectification notices record a pending state. Promotion calendars record an effective range. These three kinds of material carry different meanings and must stay separate when a link is handed to regional supervisors. The update rhythm describes the checking scope only; it does not imply batch synchronisation or real-time triggering.
Constraints at the shared access step
The no-login window is created from the application detail page under publishing channels, and the system-generated full link is copied for use. The link identifier locates a sharing entry point and does not act as a business authorisation. Expiry time, QPM, points cap and identity verification are set according to the intended scope and checked against the actual version in use; some parameters are configurable only in the commercial edition. Identity verification is a POST request root address. FastGPT decides whether to let the user continue based on whether success is true. The uid must be returned and must be a string without the characters "|", "/" or "\", with a byte length of 255 or less; otherwise Invalid UID is returned. Conversation records depend on a localId tied to the same device and browser, so switching device or clearing browser cache loses them, and only the most recent 30 days and 20 records can be pulled. These conditions show that the sharing entry point handles access and records, while business authorisation, approval and the rectification loop still need a separate system.
Hypothetical paper exercise. A chain operations department plans to hand a store audit sharing entry to regional supervisors. The material supplied for checking reads: "Store visit photograph IMG-0417 shows the A-store end-cap price tag at 9.9 yuan; the POS price list for the same day shows 9.9 yuan for that item; the headquarters promotion calendar states the promotion runs until 30 April." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "The store price tag matches the POS, the promotion is being executed, and rectification is complete." That sentence merges same-field agreement with completed rectification, and it gives no signed status for the rectification notice.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below centres on the sharing entry and checking actions in this exercise. Each figure is a hypothetical starting point for this paper exercise and states what it is compared against.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Checking and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Audit sharing entry | Used for record display only; unrelated to business authorisation |
| Expiry time | Set to the promotion calendar end date | Compared with the headquarters promotion calendar date; an expired link is unusable |
| QPM | 5 per user per minute for this exercise | Compared with actual supervisor visit frequency; check whether the version in use supports it |
| Points cap | Set to cover this audit period's usage for this exercise | Compared with billing data produced by the sharing entry; check which team bears the cost |
| Identity verification | Root address entered, without a specific path | Compared with the POST response success and uid; the uid must meet the length and character requirements |
| View quoted snippets | Enabled as the check requires | Compared with the display scope of store visit photographs and price tag lists |
Three common errors
- Treating the sharing link identifier as business authorisation. The input is the copied full link, the comparison object is the signed status of the rectification notice, and if the link works while the notice is unsigned, the authorisation state remains pending verification and rectification cannot be judged complete.
- Treating same-field agreement as valid promotion execution. The input is the 9.9 yuan price tag and the 9.9 yuan POS price list, the comparison object is the effective range in the headquarters promotion calendar, and if the calendar date does not cover the checking date, the promotion execution state is unsupported.
- Treating a
successresponse from identity verification as a completed database write or external synchronisation. The input is thesuccessanduidreturned by the authentication interface, the comparison object is whether a downstream system performed a write or sync, and the documents do not describe automatic business actions, so that state stays unknown.
How to verify the setup
- For the draft sentence in the hypothetical exercise, input store visit photograph IMG-0417, the same-day POS price list figure and the headquarters promotion calendar date, then compare whether the three share the same subject, the same period and the same field. If the price tag and POS agree and the calendar covers the checking date, price agreement and promotion validity can each hold separately; completed rectification still lacks signed evidence from the rectification notice and remains unsupported.
- For the sharing entry, input the copied full link and the authToken, then compare the
successanduidformat returned by the identity verification interface. Ifsuccessistrueand the uid contains none of "|", "/" or "\" and is no more than 255 bytes, access verification passes; ifsuccessis nottrue, themessageormsgis shown, and the actual observation is recorded without inferring undocumented error codes. - For the conversation record boundary, input the localId on the same device and browser and a cross-device access request, then compare the range of records that can be pulled. If only the most recent 30 days and 20 records can be pulled, missing cross-device records are a documented condition; if cross-device session management is needed, it is recorded as requiring a separate system, without claiming automatic sync or snapshot guarantees.