Give a provider an honest way to review a legitimately restricted catalog

Document the real access model

Inventory which pages any visitor can open and which require authentication, and name the control that creates the gate: a customer account, an approved-company rule or location-level permissions. On Shopify, for example, the B2B documentation describes company customers whose location permissions and company association can be managed without deleting the profile - a documented gating mechanism on that platform, not a universal feature.

Record why the restriction exists and who is permitted to buy, in the same terms the storefront and policies use. This description must match what buyers actually experience, because it is the account the provider will compare against your application and your public pages.

Separate buyer controls from review access

Stripe's website-activation guidance says the submitted business webpage should be accessible without a password. That is a Stripe review expectation about the submitted page, distinct from whatever gate your buyers legitimately use. Do not assume that offering reviewer credentials satisfies it, and do not remove buyer controls just to make review easier.

The open question is therefore narrow: by what route will this provider examine the gated part of the catalog? Only the provider can answer it. Treating buyer authentication and provider review as the same problem produces either a weakened gate or a reviewer who sees too little.

Ask for an acceptable review path in writing

Propose the honest options and ask the provider which it accepts - for example, a documented walkthrough of the gated catalog, or temporary reviewer access through a route the provider approves. File the dated reply. Share any access only through the channel the provider confirms, and never place credentials in public forms or ordinary email threads.

Two routes are never acceptable: cloaking, where the reviewer is shown different content from buyers, and a reviewer-only catalog that omits part of the range. Both present a different business from the one that operates, and both convert an access problem into a misdescription problem.

Keep the scope complete and the two views consistent

Whatever route is agreed, the reviewable material must cover the whole catalog, not a selection prepared for review. Claims behind the gate - product descriptions, audience framing, policies - must match the public pages and the application, because the provider reads them together.

Assign the pieces: the catalog owner supplies accurate access facts, and the provider decides whether the route is sufficient and whether the business is eligible at all. If the gated storefront's representations need a structured look first, a Prism website review can examine the public pages within an agreed scope, with responsibilities, fees and terms confirmed before work.

Reviewer-access map

Complete one copy per provider review. The map records the real access model and the route the provider accepts, so the reviewer sees the same business buyers see. It does not make any access route sufficient by itself.

Worksheet entries are not submitted by Prism’s worksheet and are not saved by the site. Use record types, availability, anonymized observations, or match/mismatch results. Do not enter government identifiers, customer names or addresses, customer messages, receipt-access links, card or bank details, passwords, or keys. Send sensitive documents only through the provider’s verified secure channel.

These are temporary notes. Leaving or reloading this page may clear them. Worksheet entries are not sent automatically. If you copy notes into the consultation message and submit the form, Prism receives them as part of your request.