Repair terminal staff-permission worksheet
Compare intended payment responsibilities with actual supported access.
No signup. Enter reference codes, add records and download a CSV. Entries stay in the browser tab. Filled fields do not establish completion, approval or compliance.
| Staff role code | Payment action | Expected permission | Observed test result | Required approval evidence | Internal test reference | Review owner role |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advisor-role | Issue a refund | Owner approval required | Approval-test-example | Provider-permission-test | Owner-role |
- Starting records are fictional examples, not merchant evidence.
- Keep private documents and actual contacts in your approved business system. Use internal reference codes here.
- Missing required fields indicate an unresolved record. Filled fields do not prove authorization, completion, compatibility or compliance.
- Export to approved business storage. Browser edits are cleared on reload.
Give each repair-shop staff role the payment access needed for its work, then test the actual permissions. Taking a payment, issuing a refund and changing account settings are different responsibilities. A shared terminal login makes those differences difficult to track. Start with a role register, verify the supported controls and document any unresolved access before assuming your payment system enforces the owner’s policy.
Use with this guide
repair terminal integration checks
Include the repair terminal integration checks when a permission changes the invoice or refund workflow.
processor buying scorecard
The processor buying scorecard records whether the proposed product supports the controls your shop needs.
Browse the complete auto repair guides and worksheets.
List the actions behind the checkout screen
Write down the actions performed at your counter: collecting an approved balance, viewing a payment, voiding an attempt, submitting a refund, exporting reports and changing checkout settings. Identify who performs each action today. Do not assume every action belongs to a service advisor because the advisor uses the terminal most often. Separate permission to request a correction from permission to execute the correction.
Square’s offline-payment documentation of account or settings permission to configure offline acceptance at the account or settings level and checkout permission to take payments at the checkout level is one example of role separation. Note that the roles supported by your payment provider may be different from those listed above. You will need to check the available controls for your specific account and product. A written shop policy does not prove a software restriction exists, and an administrator label does not describe every action a user can perform. Include the repair terminal integration checks when a permission changes the invoice or refund workflow.
Sources for this section: Square: supported offline payments, risks and device limits
Test a role against a fictional scenario
Use the staff-permission worksheet to record the role, payment action, expected access, actual test result, approval requirement, evidence reference and review owner. Test through provider-approved methods. Avoid issuing a real refund or changing a live account setting simply to see whether the button works. A supported demonstration, controlled test account or documented permission review should provide evidence without affecting a customer.
For an illustrative setup, the advisor role collects approved balances while the owner role approves refunds. Test whether an advisor can submit a refund directly and whether the system records the responsible user. If the product does not enforce the expected separation, record the limitation. The answer might be a revised operating procedure or different supported configuration. Do not claim the worksheet creates an approval control the software lacks.
Keep account access attributable
Review shared logins, departing employees and outside bookkeeping access. Follow your provider’s supported sign-in and user-management process. Do not place passwords, security codes or recovery details in the public register. Use role codes and internal evidence references. Account recovery information needs controlled storage, not a worksheet downloaded into whichever personal folder happens to be open.
Ask who sees the activity history and which actions identify the user. Compare one approved test with the recorded result. If two employees use the same account, the history might identify the account without establishing which employee acted. Resolve the practical limitation with the provider. Do not treat transaction logs as a complete security investigation or promise they establish intent in every case.
Review access when staff or workflows change
Recheck permissions when an advisor changes roles, a bookkeeper leaves or a new payment device arrives. Record the requested change and the evidence confirming completion. Removing a person from a staff schedule is not evidence of revoked payment access. Include any separate reporting portal or support contact authorization in the review when those systems grant additional control over payments.
Keep an internal review date for each unresolved permission. The public tool shows missing fields but does not certify account security or payment compliance. Its value is a traceable list of tested responsibilities. When a refund, void or settings change occurs, the office should know which role requested the action, which role performed the action and where the supporting record lives. The processor buying scorecard records whether the proposed product supports the controls your shop needs.
Primary sources
BlueFinch last reviewed these sources on October 4, 2026. Payment rules and state requirements can change.
Use this page for general business information. It is not legal, tax, or accounting advice.