The sales representative sees customer balances, and the store staff sees the profitability of all branches. While thought of as information sharing, an uncontrolled leak is actually growing.
Report authorization must be considered separately from screen authorization. Reading and exporting are not at the same risk level.
In this article, we explained role-based report access, scope filtering, sensitive data protection, and audit trails. The goal is to protect confidentiality without breaking visibility.
Table of Contents
Why is report authorization essential?
A report is the most intense summary of raw data. In the wrong hands, it generates competition and internal tension.
Areas such as salaries, costs, and customer risk are more sensitive than operation screens. An open menu means open risk.
EQLEM is a solution platform; while opening report visibility to the operations team, it does not disrupt your current ERP financial authorization model. The two layers must be considered together.
Unauthorized access is often not an intentional act, but a wrong assumption. The convenience of "let everyone see" comes at a high price.
We explained the general authorization structure in the role-based authorization article. The report package is part of that structure.
Role-based access
Giving reports to each user one by one is unsustainable. The role menu reduces the maintenance load.
Define separate report packages for sales, warehouse, finance, and management. Moving outside the package should be the exception.
If the same person has multiple roles, choose the narrowest necessary set. Broad privilege accumulation generates silent risks.
Report access must also be reviewed during a role change. If the old role's list is forgotten, the leakage persists.
Align user setup with the user permissions article. Role and individual permissions must be read together.
Scope filter
Opening the report is not enough; which branch or warehouse will be visible must also be restricted. Menu permission and data scope are different.
Store managers should only see their own location. Seeing the entire chain is a separate management role.
The scope filter must be applied mandatorily when running the report. The user should not be able to remove the filter.
In multi-company structures, company boundaries are established with the same discipline. Mixed company rows produce wrong decisions.
We explained the concept of scope in the branch and warehouse scope article. Report authority sits on top of this scope.
Sensitive data classes
Not all columns have the same sensitivity. Cost, margin, and personal contact info require a separate class.
Separate sensitive columns into distinct reports or mask them. Showing everything on a single screen is unnecessary risk.
Tighter locks are required for areas like finance and e-documents. We discussed these locks in the sensitive transaction permissions article.
Keep the classification list in writing. Class checks must be performed when opening a new report.
Let the operations team see inventory and orders; keep the cost line in the management package. Role clarity ends the debate.
Export control
Seeing the screen is not the same as downloading to Excel. Downloading moves control outside the enterprise.
Keep export permissions narrow and grant them with justification. Temporary authorization reduces permanent risk.
Lock down bulk export as well. A single row is not the same as the entire customer list.
Keep track of the downloaded file. It must be known who, when, and with which filter obtained it.
To reduce the habit of file sharing, transitioning from Excel to the platform also read the guide. The source should remain on the platform.
Sharing rules
Screenshots and chat sharing breach the authorization model. Without written team rules, control weakens.
The period, filter, and source must be specified when sharing. Contextless numbers produce misinterpretations.
Access for external consultants or financial advisors must be granted with a separate role. Temporary access must carry an expiration date.
Prepare meeting packages in advance; it is unnecessary for everyone to open every report live. A narrow package ensures focus.
Establish reading discipline report reading guide together with. Authorization and reading complement each other.
Audit and trace
Sensitive report openings must be logged. Without a trace, no investigation can be conducted.
The question of who saw which report and with what scope must be answerable. This record is not to intimidate, but for order.
Periodically check abnormal access patterns. Bulk downloads during night hours should trigger alerts.
We covered message and transaction logs in the audit logs article. Report trails belong to the same family.
Review the audit output monthly with management. A dead policy is no policy at all.
Boundary with the existing system
Financial authorizations in Mikro or Logo do not replace platform authorization. The two systems are separate surfaces.
The platform shows operational reports; financial ledger authority remains in the existing ERP. This distinction must be kept intentional.
Synchronized balances are also subject to scope filtering. They should not see a branch in the platform that they do not see in the ERP.
We explained the collaboration model in theplatform alongside the existing ERP article. Authority limits are also part of that model.
In case of suspected authority conflict, apply the restrictive rule. A broad interpretation compromises confidentiality.
Installation steps
First, list and classify the sensitive report list. Without a list, authority cannot be established.
In the second step, assign packages to roles and attach scope filters. Verify with a test user.
In the third step, narrow down the export authority. It should be kept closed by default.
In the fourth step, enable the audit trail and perform sample checks in the first week. It must be known whether the trail is working.
In the final step, give a short training to the team; a rule cannot be applied without knowing it. A written summary alone is not enough.
Common mistakes
Giving everyone an administrator role is the most expensive mistake. Easy installation produces difficult auditing.
Locking the menu while leaving export open is the second mistake. Risk just shifts location.
Not revoking the authority of former personnel is the third mistake. Report access must be included in the offboarding process.
Ignoring the sharing culture is the fourth mistake. Technical locks alone do not solve chat leaks.
Discipline the habit of reading reports as well; authority and reading work together. You can find details in the operations reports article.
Frequently asked questions
Does screen authority cover report authority?
No, it does not; report packages and exporting must be defined separately.
Should the financial advisor see all reports?
The necessary financial set is sufficient; operational exceptions are given with a separate role.
Does EQLEM replace the existing ERP authority?
No, it does not; the platform manages the operational surface, while the existing system manages financial record authority.
Should exporting be disabled completely?
A default-closed, exception-open model is balanced for most businesses.
Report permissions establish a conscious balance between visibility and privacy. Opening every list to everyone is not transparency, it is generating risk.
Set up the role package, scope filter, and export lock together. Menu permission alone is not enough.
Classify sensitive columns and keep the audit trail enabled. A policy without a trail is weak.
Do not confuse existing ERP financial permissions with platform report permissions. Each surface protects its own boundary.
Make reviewing access a routine upon departure and role changes. Forgotten permissions are silent leaks.
By consulting with the EQLEM team, you can clarify your report permission model.