What the documents look like
Store count and loss control work centers on book-to-physical variance and shrinkage, and it does not handle supplier payables. The working records are count sheets, variance analyses, loss write-off approvals, and monitoring review logs. Data arrives from POS inventory, WMS, monitoring systems, and the SB/T count standard, with updates on a monthly or quarterly rhythm. The people who use these records are loss prevention staff, store inventory keepers, and finance auditors.
For this page the task is narrower: placing count variance material, write-off approval material, and monitoring review logs into a shared entry point used for store service and internal training, so store staff and auditors can check them against each other. Two facts shape that work. The share link identifier exists only to label the record for display, and it does not act as a business authorization credential. The identity verification result decides whether a user may continue, and neither retrieval nor a form that collects values performs authorization or executes a business action.
Constraints at the shared access step
The no-login window is created from the publish channel, and the system-generated full link is copied for use. The link identifier stays a display label. Expiration time and QPM are set for the intended scope of use and checked against the actual edition in use; QPM means the maximum number of visits per user per minute. The points cap concerns usage limits and cost attribution at the shared entry point, and some parameters are restricted by edition. Third-party identity verification is limited to the commercial edition, and it relies on the official interface returning a success state together with uid. The anonymous local identifier depends on the same device and the same browser, so cross-device records require separate identity and session design. A retrieval similarity score does not carry permission or entity separation, and the same-vector-model requirement for a retrieval dataset does not extend to unrelated external systems.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a chain supermarket loss prevention department plans to embed one count variance record in an internal training share entry point for store inventory keepers to check. The source text reads: "March 2025 closed-store count, Store A snack foods section, book inventory 120 units, physical count 114 units, variance 6 units, variance cause is near-expiry write-off not entered in time." A draft sentence awaits judgment: "The count variance for this store has been approved by loss prevention and can be written off directly." The source material does not state the write-off approval status or the approver, so "approved" has no corresponding field in the source text and remains unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation checks tied to this page's documents and to the sample above.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Count training share entry | Used only for record display, not as an authorization basis |
| Expiration time | Set for the training cycle | After this time the link cannot be used; check the actual edition |
| QPM | Set as maximum visits per user per minute | Check the usage limit at the share entry point |
| Points cap | Estimated from training-period usage | Check cost attribution and edition restrictions |
| Identity verification | Root address for verification | Check the official interface success state and uid |
| Conversation record boundary | Same device, same browser | Design separate identity and session handling for cross-device records |
Once the identity verification root address is configured, share link initialization, conversation start, and conversation finish each send a request to the corresponding interface. The verification interface only needs to return whether verification succeeded, and uid must be returned as a string no longer than 255 bytes that contains no "|", "/", or "\" characters. The conversation result reporting interface has no specified return value, and the notable fields are totalPoints and token. These are documented statements and do not indicate an actual deployment or test.
Three common errors
- Treating the share link identifier as business authorization. Observable form: shareId or authToken is equated with a completed write-off approval. Executable check: input the sample source text and the draft sentence, compare whether the material states an approval status field, and observe whether "approved" in the draft has corresponding source support. If the material does not state it, record the item as unsupported.
- Treating retrieval similarity as permission or entity separation. Observable form: a similarity setting is assumed to exclude unrelated stores or unauthorized records. Executable check: input the sample material and a retrieval request, compare whether the retrieval output contains records from other stores, and observe whether cross-store content appears. Retrieval does not perform authorization, so separate verification is required.
- Treating a pending review state as a completed approval. Observable form: a "loss write-off approval" pending state is written directly as "approved." Executable check: input the sample material and the draft sentence, compare the value of the write-off approval field in the material, and observe whether an explicit "approved" entry exists. A pending state does not show that approval is complete.
How to verify the setup
- Identity verification check. Input: the sample source text and a share link request carrying authToken. Compare: the success value and uid returned by the verification interface against the official format requirements. Observe: when success is true and uid format is compliant, the user may continue; when success is not true, an error is shown. The expected result is not claimed as tested.
- Conversation record boundary check. Input: two access situations, one on the same device and same browser, one after switching devices. Compare: whether conversation records can be pulled. Observe: on the same device and same browser the most recent 30 days and 20 records can be pulled; after switching devices or clearing the cache the records are lost. This boundary is a documented condition.
- Draft sentence and source consistency check. Input: the sample source text and the draft sentence "The count variance for this store has been approved by loss prevention and can be written off directly." Compare: whether the material states the write-off approval status and the approver. Observe: when the material does not state an approval status, the draft sentence is unsupported, and the evidence gap must be preserved without adding authorization or effective clauses.