Group 1 - The core viewpoint emphasizes the need for regular supervision of state-owned asset management to ensure comprehensive standardization, transparency, and effective oversight, ultimately serving economic and social development [1] - The responsibility of regulatory bodies for state-owned asset management is to be reinforced, integrating supervision with the implementation of major government projects, and focusing on the improvement of asset management systems and the effectiveness of asset utilization [1] - There is a call for targeted risk assessments and the establishment of comprehensive regulations to ensure the proper functioning of power in the management and use of state-owned assets [1] Group 2 - Daily supervision is to be strengthened with a focus on problem-oriented approaches, involving multiple departments to monitor asset management and compliance in various stages such as acquisition, custody, and inventory [2] - The use of diverse methods such as inspections, on-site checks, and discussions is encouraged to ensure compliance in asset utilization, leasing, and external investments [2] - A mechanism for accountability is to be established, with timely feedback on issues found during inspections and strict consequences for violations, particularly regarding the unauthorized use of state-owned assets [2]