What the documents look like
Central chain procurement operations revolve around four document families: centralized procurement contracts, replenishment plans, delivery notes and store requisition forms. The underlying data comes from ERP purchasing, WMS, store POS and supplier delivery records, with daily or weekly update cycles. This page addresses one step only: access controls for operations handover, meaning which materials, actions and requests sit in which authorization state when work passes between people or teams.
Two authorization layers stay separate. Business-system permissions in ERP or WMS are validated on their own terms; FastGPT resource permissions are validated through the documented team, member group and collection mechanisms. File classification, tags and retrieval relevance do not constitute access authorization. A search result that surfaces a contract does not grant the right to read that contract, and a form that collects a value does not by itself perform verification, approval, database writes or external synchronization.
Constraints at the access controls step
Team permissions in FastGPT combine attribute-based and role-based paradigms and are configured through members, departments and groups. Member permissions carry the highest priority. Department and group permissions are combined as a union and rank below member permissions. The final permission is the combination of these results. Resources covered by the permission table include team, application, knowledge base (dataset) and file/folder (collection).
File-level permission is a commercial-edition feature. In the closed state, collection readability follows the knowledge base exactly, and the system queries no collection permission records. In the open state, each file or folder generates a complete permission snapshot, and list views, detail views and retrieval recall are all authorized item by item against that snapshot. Knowledge base permission remains the threshold at all times; collection permission cannot bypass it. Retrieval recall filters by the files the current member can read, and this applies only when authentication runs against the current member identity. A workflow that preselects a knowledge base without member-identity authentication performs no file-level filtering. System root and team owner are treated as holding full permission on all files. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission; team-level management authority covers only team resources such as member groups and organizations, while knowledge bases and files are still authorized through their own collaborator configurations.
A hypothetical paper exercise illustrates the handover question. The centralized procurement contract text reads: "Party A is the headquarters procurement center; Party B is a supplier; the subject matter is third-quarter ambient milk centralized procurement; the signing status is signed by both parties." A store requisition form reads: "Store A requests replenishment of 200 cases of ambient milk; submission date is 1 July 2025; approval status is pending review." A draft handover sentence under evaluation reads: "Store A's requisition has been approved; please have the distribution center arrange the wave for 200 cases." The task is to determine whether the draft sentence is supported by the source texts.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented setting or implementation check | Check action for this exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Team permission | Member permission takes priority; department and group permissions form a union | Confirm the identities and team roles of both handover parties |
| Knowledge base permission | Manageable, editable, usable | Confirm the authorization scope of the knowledge base holding the contract |
| File-level permission switch | Open state authorizes item by item against the snapshot | Confirm whether the knowledge bases holding the contract and requisition have the switch open |
| Collection role | Read, write, administrator, creator | Confirm the current creator and collaborator list of the requisition |
| Retrieval recall | Filters by files the current member can read | Check visible content separately with an authorized account and an unauthorized account |
| External system permission | External interface authentication and FastGPT resource permission are validated separately | Confirm the interface authorization state on the ERP or WMS side |
No default values, limits, units or global switches are asserted here beyond what the official documents state. Where a numeric starting value is needed, it is named as a hypothetical starting point for this exercise with its reason and the value it is compared against.
Three common errors
- Treating a pending requisition as approved. In the exercise, the approval status field reads "pending review," while the draft sentence claims "has been approved." These are mutually exclusive values on the same field, so the draft sentence contradicts the source text on that field.
- Using retrieval relevance in place of an authorization judgment. A recall result from a knowledge base search test does not constitute access authorization for the contract or the requisition. Retrieval is not authorization, and a similarity score is not a category, entity or permission filter.
- Treating a team administrator as able to bypass file-level permission. Team administrators do not bypass file-level permission. Knowledge bases and files are still authorized through their own collaborator configurations, and team-level management authority covers only team resources.
How to verify the setup
- Input the requisition source text "approval status is pending review" and the draft sentence "has been approved." Compare the value of the same field, approval status. If the draft sentence and the source text hold mutually exclusive values on that field, the condition is not met and the item is recorded as unsupported.
- Input the contract source text "signing status is signed by both parties" and the handover request's judgment about contract effectiveness. Compare two distinct facts: signing and effectiveness. If the request equates signing directly with effectiveness, the condition is not met and the evidence gap remains open. No authorization or effectiveness clause is invented to produce a definite answer.
- Input an authorized account and an unauthorized account, and perform a view action on the same requisition. Compare the content actually visible to each account. If both accounts see the same scope and both can view the requisition, recheck whether file-level permission is open. If, after opening, the unauthorized account cannot see it, the behavior matches the documented expectation. This is an expected result stated for the exercise, not a claim that a test was run.
Where a document field is not provided, it remains unknown. A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Missing evidence stays missing.