What the documents look like
Channel diversion review deals with regional and price order. Its working materials are diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices and investigation photographs. Brand channel control teams, anti-counterfeit teams and regional managers handle these materials on a weekly or irregular rhythm. The difference from rebate accounting is that this task does not process rebate amounts. It examines goods flow and price order.
Two access consequences follow. Anti-counterfeit code records often carry goods flow direction and dealer identity, while complaint forms and investigation photographs may point to a specific region. Read scope therefore needs per-member, per-item control. Operations handover happens when staff change or duties are adjusted. What is handed over is material access scope and pending items, not a business ruling. Retrieval relevance and file classification labels do not constitute access authorization.
Constraints at the access controls step
Knowledge base permission is the threshold. File-level permission cannot bypass knowledge base permission. When file-level permission is off, collection readability matches the knowledge base and the system queries no collection permission records. When it is on, each file or folder generates a permission snapshot, and lists, details and retrieval recall are each authorized against the snapshot. Retrieval recall filters by the current member identity only when authorization runs by that identity. A workflow that preselects a knowledge base without member-identity authorization does not perform file-level filtering.
Hypothetical drill sample. Source text one: a diversion complaint form submitted by a member states "the complaint target is East China regional dealer A, the anti-counterfeit code segment begins with 64, and the complaint date is March 2024." Source text two: a penalty notice draft in the same knowledge base states "supply to dealer A is proposed to be suspended; status is pending review; not yet signed." Sentence to be judged: "Dealer A has been penalized and the penalty notice has taken effect." This sentence conflicts with the status field of source text two.
Configuration and implementation checks
The following are hypothetical trial starting points and check items for this exercise. They are not official defaults. The hypothetical trial starting point is "file-level permission on," because the sample materials carry dealer identity and regional information and need per-file read scope control. The comparison method is to check the same account's visibility record for the same file before and after the switch.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Check method |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base read permission | Granted by member identity | Access the same file with an unauthorized account; record whether it is visible |
| File-level permission switch | On | Compare the visible item count in the same file list before and after the switch |
| File collaborator role | Read or write permission | Inspect the operations each account can perform on that file |
| Creator record | Submitted list includes the current creator | Check the creator field before a full-overwrite collaborator submission |
| Retrieval authorization entry | Authorized by current member identity | Compare recall counts in the knowledge base search test |
| Team administrator scope | Does not bypass file-level permission | Access the file with a team administrator account; record the actual visible content |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval relevance as access authorization. Input: a retrieval query in the same knowledge base against a file the member cannot read. Compare: the retrieval settings and the file collaborator configuration. Observable result: if the recall count includes the unreadable file, that entry did not filter by member identity; if the recall count excludes the unreadable file, it meets the authorization condition. Retrieval similarity does not carry permission or entity isolation.
- Treating pending review as already effective. Input: the sample penalty notice draft "status is pending review; not yet signed." Compare: the draft's status field with the wording "has taken effect." Observable result: if the drafted sentence says it has taken effect, it conflicts with the source status field; if the drafted sentence is changed to pending review, it matches the source. Pending review does not show a lack of operating permission. Signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts.
- Treating team administrator as bypassing file-level permission. Input: a team administrator account request for the sample file. Compare: the account's actual visible content with the file collaborator configuration. Observable result: if the visible content exceeds the collaborator configuration scope, it conflicts with the documented "does not bypass"; if the visible content matches the collaborator configuration, it meets the condition. Team owner and system root skip file-level parsing as documented.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: read scope. Input the sample complaint form and an unauthorized account. Compare that account's visibility record for the same file with the file collaborator configuration. The condition is met when visible content matches the collaborator configuration, and unreadable files do not occupy a slot and pagination results are correct.
- Verification two: status determination. Input the sample penalty notice draft and the drafted sentence. Compare the draft status field with the drafted sentence wording. The condition is met when the drafted sentence matches the source status field and does not write pending review as effective.
- Verification three: retrieval authorization. Input a knowledge base search test query authorized by current member identity. Compare the recall count with that member's readable file scope. The condition is met when the recall count does not exceed the readable file scope. If an empty result is returned, a paper input of [] can be carried forward to check the downstream design; do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Knowledge bases across different vector models cannot be associated together. Check identifiers only and exclude non-matching ones, then record the actual observation.