What the documents look like
Marketplace category access happens before a listing is published or a store is onboarded. The material set is checked against the applicant entity and the chain of authorization. A business license, a trademark registration certificate, a brand authorization chain and an industry permit form the core documents. They arrive from platform recruitment pages, the national enterprise credit information system, trademark office data and permit systems. These materials update irregularly, and each onboarding submission starts a fresh review.
For access control and data isolation, each document carries four fields: subject, object, validity period and authorization scope. A handover that moves files without checking authorization status can leave the receiving team acting on a document that has been rejected or has not yet taken effect. Document classification, tags and retrieval relevance do not constitute access authorization. Retrieval settings do not replace a permission decision.
Constraints at the access controls step
Qualification materials are isolated inside a team according to resource permissions. The permission system combines member, department and group management. Member permissions carry the highest priority; department and group permissions are combined as a union and then merged with member permissions. Resource types include team, application, knowledge base and collection (file or folder). File-level permission for a knowledge base is a commercial-edition feature. In the closed state, collection readability matches the knowledge base. In the open state, each file or folder generates a permission snapshot, and list, detail and retrieval recall are authorized item by item against that snapshot. Knowledge base permission always remains the threshold; collection permission cannot bypass it.
When file-level permission is open and authentication runs against the current member identity, retrieval recall filters out files the member cannot read. A workflow that preselects a knowledge base without member-identity authentication does not apply file-level filtering. Similarity or relevance settings do not carry permission or entity-isolation duties. A team administrator does not bypass file-level permission. System root and the team owner are treated as holding full permission over all files.
Operations handover distinguishes three states: behavior a node already has, fields that can actually be configured, and business actions that require a separate downstream implementation. A pending review does not demonstrate the absence of an operating permission. Signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three separate facts. A form collects values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below is built around a hypothetical drill sample. Sample material text (fictional, used only for checking on this page):
Material A: subject "Chenxing Trading (example)", unified social credit code 00000000000000000X, business scope includes prepackaged food sales, permit number SP-EXAMPLE-001, valid until 2026-12-31.
Material B: trademark registration certificate No. 0000000, registrant "Chenxing Trading (example)", approved goods class 30, exclusive right period 2024-01-01 to 2034-01-01.
Draft handover request: "Transfer materials A and B to operations group B; group B may edit and submit the onboarding application externally."
| Configuration item | Documented basis | Checking action on this page |
|---|---|---|
| Member and group permission | Member permission has the highest priority; department and group permissions form a union | Check group B member identities and the resource authorization scope |
| Knowledge base file-level permission switch | Closed state inherits knowledge base permission; open state generates snapshots | Confirm which state the collection holding the qualification files is in |
| Collection collaborator role | Read, write, admin, creator | Check whether the role granted to group B covers the draft request |
| Retrieval recall authentication | Files beyond permission are filtered when authenticating by current member identity | Use an authorized and an unauthorized account to check visibility of the same file |
| Creator constraint | The creator cannot be granted or modified through collaborator configuration | Check whether the submitted list contains the current creator |
| External submission action | A form collects values; business verification and external synchronization need downstream implementation | Confirm whether an implementation exists for the onboarding submission |
Hypothetical trial starting point: set group B as a write-permission collaborator on the collection. This starting point is chosen because the draft request requires group B to edit; the comparison objects are the admin role and the read role, and the observation is whether group B can perform edit actions. This starting point is a hypothetical setting for this page, not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval relevance setting as a permission filter. Input is the group B account and one qualification file that has not been authorized. The comparison is between the retrieval return and the collection collaborator list. The observation is that a relevance score, high or low, does not change whether that file appears in recall. Relevance does not carry entity-isolation duties.
- Treating a pending-review status as granted authorization. Input is a permit material marked "under review". The comparison is between the material status field and the phrase "may submit externally" in the draft request. The observation is that under review does not constitute a basis for submission, and the status gap must be recorded.
- Treating a form submission as completed external synchronization. Input is the draft onboarding request. The comparison is between the values the form collects and whether a downstream implementation exists. The observation is that a form only collects values; whether the submission action executes must be confirmed against a separate system.
How to verify the setup
- Check one: input the text of material A and the group B account. Compare whether group B appears in the collection collaborator list with a write or admin role. Observe whether the group B account can enter the edit interface when opening that file. The condition is met when editing is possible and knowledge base read permission is also present.
- Check two: input the text of material B and the draft handover request. Compare "may edit and submit externally" in the request against the actual role of group B. Observe whether an independent implementation carries the external submission. The condition is met when edit permission and the submission action are separately traceable, and a submission that has not executed is recorded as pending implementation.
- Check three: input one unauthorized qualification file and an account without permission. Compare that account's collection collaborator record against the retrieval return. Observe whether the file appears in recall results. The condition is met when unreadable files take no place and pagination results are correct. An empty-result check can use the explicit paper input
[]to carry downstream design; it does not assert that a fictional rule necessarily returns empty.
Knowledge bases using different vector models cannot be associated together. During checking, verify the identifier first, exclude those that do not match, and record the actual observation. Do not run a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.