What the documents look like
Ratings and experience-score maintenance follows consumer feedback after after-sales fulfilment. The working materials are negative-review handling records, experience-score detail statements, service diagnostic reports, and rectification ledgers. These materials serve two roles during an operations handover: they are evidence for judging changes in service indicators, and they are permission objects governed by knowledge-base and file-level access rules.
Sources for this category include Douyin Store experience scores, Tmall service indicators, JD after-sales reviews, and customer-service systems. Materials update daily or weekly. That cadence does not by itself create any synchronization or trigger mechanism, and it does not change how permissions are evaluated. A single experience-score detail statement can be read as an indicator record and simultaneously be a resource whose visibility depends on the reader's knowledge-base and file-level roles.
Retrieval relevance is decided by vector matching and does not perform access authorization. Material categories and tags likewise do not form a permission boundary. A file that matches a query well is not thereby readable by the person running the query.
Constraints at the access controls step
Knowledge-base permission is always the threshold. File-level permission cannot bypass it. In the closed state, collection readability matches the knowledge base exactly, and the system does not query any collection permission records. In the open state, each file or folder generates a complete permission snapshot, and list, detail, and retrieval recall each authenticate against that snapshot item by item.
Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission. Only system root and the team owner are treated as holding all permissions on all files. Retrieval recall filters unauthorized files only when authentication runs under the current member identity. A workflow that preselects a knowledge base and does not authenticate by member identity performs no file-level filtering and recalls under knowledge-base permission. Permission judgment checks personal member permission first, then takes the union of department and group permissions; personal member permission overrides an all-member group permission.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source text of a shop operations handover material reads, "Negative review handling record, week 2 of June 2024: customer service supervisor A submitted a rectification ledger draft on 11 June, status pending review; quality inspection specialist B holds edit permission on this knowledge base and does not hold file-level administrator permission. Proposed handover request: overwrite the collaborator list of the rectification ledger draft so that only B remains, and restore inheritance." The draft sentence to be judged reads, "B has obtained write permission and administrator permission on this file, and the handover is complete." This request involves full-overwrite semantics and the requirement to retain the creator, so it must be compared against the knowledge-base open state, B's actual role, and whether the creator appears in the submitted list.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Comparison method and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge-base file-level permission switch | Closed | Compare with the knowledge-base detail page information bar to confirm whether opening is required first |
| Collaborator submission semantics | Full overwrite | Compare with the submitted list to check whether the creator is retained |
| Member permission versus group permission priority | Personal overrides all-member group | Use accounts with and without permission to check visibility of the same file |
| Retrieval recall authentication identity | By current member identity | Compare with the workflow-preselected knowledge-base scenario to confirm whether filtering occurs |
| Team administrator file-level permission | Does not bypass | Use a team administrator account to check file-level collaborator configuration |
| Consequence of closing the switch | Clears all collaborator configuration | Compare with the second confirmation prompt to confirm the action cannot be rolled back |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval relevance or material category as access authorization. Observable error: assuming that a vector match to a file means the current member may view it. Check: run the same retrieval with an account that lacks read permission on that file, and observe whether the unauthorized file is recalled.
- Treating a pending-review status as approval. Observable error: recording the rectification ledger draft's pending-review status as a completed handover. Check: compare the status field in the source text with the conclusion in the draft sentence, and confirm that pending review does not constitute approval.
- Omitting the creator during full overwrite. Observable error: submitting a collaborator list that does not include the current creator, causing rejection. Check: compare the submitted list with the creator record and confirm whether the creator appears in the list.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source text and the draft sentence. Compare the draft sentence "B has obtained write permission and administrator permission" with the source text "B holds edit permission and does not hold file-level administrator permission." If the two role descriptions disagree, the draft sentence does not hold.
- Input the hypothetical request "overwrite so that only B remains and restore inheritance." Compare the submitted list with the creator record. If the list does not include the creator, the request is rejected and the handover is not complete.
- Input the two conditions of a closed knowledge base and an open knowledge base. Compare the range of files visible to the same account during retrieval recall. If unauthorized files are still recalled in the closed state, file-level filtering is not in effect.
In each check, the required material must sit inside a retrieval scope the account may access, or inside an explicit manual input. Where it is missing, record the gap. A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.