What the documents look like
Near-expiry markdown handling follows shelf-stock lifecycle rather than order-by-order weighing. The working materials are a near-expiry list, a markdown approval, a damage write-off form and a promotional price tag, updated daily or by shift. Data comes from POS stock age, store inspection, ERP inventory and quality-check records. The operational roles are the fresh-food store manager, the shrinkage administrator and the finance auditor.
For access control and handover, the question is which batches each role can see, which approvals each role can submit, and which actions are only requests rather than completed steps. A signature line on a markdown approval and an isolation conclusion on a damage write-off form are separate facts. A retrieval similarity score or a file classification label does not grant access.
Constraints at the access controls step
FastGPT separates team, application, knowledge base and collection (file or folder) as resource types. Knowledge base permission is always the threshold: collection permission cannot bypass knowledge base permission. File-level permission is off by default; in the off state, collection readability matches the knowledge base exactly and the system does not query any collection permission records. When switched on, each file or folder receives a permission snapshot, and list, detail and retrieval recall are checked item by item against that snapshot.
Retrieval recall filters unauthorized files only when authentication runs by the current member identity. A workflow that preselects a knowledge base without member-identity authentication does not apply file-level filtering and still recalls by knowledge base permission. A team administrator does not bypass file-level permission. System root and the team owner are treated as holding all permissions on all files.
Hypothetical drill sample. A fresh-food store handover on the morning shift of 10 June 2025. The near-expiry list submitted by the inspector reads: "10 June 08:20 inspection, cold section A3 shelf, 12 cups of yogurt with a shelf life to 12 June, markdown of 30% recommended." The markdown approval reads: "Applicant: morning-shift inspector; approval status is awaiting store manager review; markdown rate: 30%; scope: 12 cups on shelf A3." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "This yogurt batch has been approved by the store manager and can proceed to damage write-off isolation." That sentence states a pending review as approved and mixes in the damage write-off isolation action.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below covers this page's sample and lists settings documented in the official material or implementation checks tied to them. The values are hypothetical starting points for this drill, used to compare against the actual record in the same field.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Check method |
|---|---|---|
| Knowledge base file-level permission switch | Off state | Open the knowledge base detail page file list and see whether the permission entry appears in the row menu; in the off state a write operation is rejected with a prompt to enable it first |
| Collection collaborator configuration semantics | Full overwrite | After submitting the collaborator list, check whether it contains the current creator; if missing, the submission is rejected |
| Near-expiry list file read permission | Granted to inspector and store manager | Open the same file with an account lacking read permission and observe whether the list filters that file |
| Markdown approval write permission | Granted to store manager | Try to modify the approval status with a read-only account and observe whether the change is rejected |
| Retrieval recall authentication condition | By current member identity | Run a knowledge base search test with an account lacking read permission and observe whether the unauthorized file is recalled |
| Damage write-off form delete permission | Creator only | Try to delete a file not created by the account, using an administrator account, and observe whether the item is filtered with a prompt |
The off state is chosen as the starting point because the documentation describes it as the default behavior, and the comparison object is the visibility difference of the same file after the switch is turned on.
Three common errors
- Treating a pending review status as approved. In the sample, the markdown approval states "approval status is awaiting store manager review," while the draft sentence says "approved by the store manager." The input is the approval text and the draft sentence, the compared field is the approval status, and the observable result is that the two values do not match.
- Treating retrieval similarity as permission filtering. If a similarity setting is used to infer that a member cannot see a file, the input is the retrieval setting and the member account, the comparison object is the file list actually visible to that member, and the observable result is whether the list is filtered item by item against the snapshot.
- Expecting collaborator configuration to survive after file-level permission is switched off. The off operation deletes all file and folder collaborator configuration under that knowledge base. The input is the configuration before the switch-off and the same file after, the comparison object is the collaborator list, and the observable result is whether the list returns to inheriting knowledge base permission.
How to verify the setup
- Check the near-expiry list text against an account without read permission. The input is "10 June 08:20 inspection, cold section A3 shelf, 12 cups of yogurt with a shelf life to 12 June, markdown of 30% recommended" plus a member account without read permission on that file. Compare whether the account's file list filters that file. The condition is met when the list does not show the file and pagination results remain correct. If the file appears, file-level permission is not in effect.
- Check the markdown approval text against the draft sentence. The input is "approval status is awaiting store manager review" and "This yogurt batch has been approved by the store manager and can proceed to damage write-off isolation." Compare the approval status field values. The condition is met when the draft sentence differs from the source text, so the draft should state the pending status and remove the damage write-off isolation wording.
- Check the downstream design with an empty-result input. The input is an explicit paper input of []. Compare whether the downstream flow handles it as an empty result. The condition is met when the downstream flow produces no damage write-off form or markdown execution action. This check does not claim that a fabricated rule retrieval must return []; it verifies only the empty-input handling design.
The documented technical facts used to identify relevant material in this page are: team roles (verify actual member identity and team role; a role name does not replace a resource access test); resource permission (check read and operation permission item by item against the authorization scope of the relevant resource); material classification (file classification, labels and retrieval similarity are not access authorization, and retrieval settings cannot replace permission); external system permission (when integrating a business system, verify the external interface authentication and FastGPT resource permission separately); per-account verification (use accounts with and without permission to check the same material and record the actually visible content and operation result).