What Data for This Category Looks Like
Professional services intelligent due diligence report data primarily comes from industrial and commercial public disclosure systems, third-party credit reporting agencies, industry regulatory databases, and client-submitted due diligence working papers. Update frequencies vary by source: industrial and commercial data updates quarterly, credit reporting data updates T+1, and regulatory documents sync in real time as published. Documents exist as structured fields combined with unstructured attachments, including modules such as subject qualifications, compliance records, related transaction details, and risk ratings. Field units include ten thousand yuan, hundred million yuan, and YYYY-MM-DD date format. Single documents are mostly multi-page PDFs or combinations of structured tables.
Constraints Imposed on Workflow Orchestration by These Characteristics
Multi-source heterogeneous data sources and differentiated update cycles require configuring scheduled trigger nodes for per-source scheduling in the workflow. This distinguishes synchronization cycles for different data sources to avoid expired data or repeated pulls. The mixed structured and unstructured document structure requires integrating both structured field extraction nodes and multi-format attachment parsing nodes in the workflow to adapt to different types of due diligence materials. Diverse field units and format requirements require adding unit consistency verification and format compliance check nodes in the data verification link. This ensures input for subsequent analysis links conforms to unified specifications. Compliance requirements in professional service scenarios also require embedding regulatory rule matching nodes in the workflow. These nodes automatically verify consistency between report content and current regulatory requirements.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS | 600 seconds | Single due diligence reports often include multi-page PDFs and structured tables; a longer timeout prevents parsing interruptions for large documents |
UPLOAD_FILE_MAX_SIZE | 50 MB | Attachments for professional service due diligence reports are mostly compliance working papers; 50 MB covers most standard due diligence materials |
loop_var_access | Globally visible | Subject information in due diligence reports needs to be reused across multiple loop nodes such as related transaction traversal; global variable access simplifies workflow logic |
code_runner_history_check | Disabled | Processing due diligence reports requires avoiding interference from historical conversation context with structured data extraction; disabling input check adapts to pure data processing scenarios |
workflow_schedule_interval | Hourly | Credit reporting data updates T+1; hourly scheduling ensures data timeliness meets compliance requirements for professional services |
maxContext | 8000 characters | The risk rating module of due diligence reports contains lengthy content; an appropriate context window ensures complete extraction of key information |
The parameter values provided on this page are common recommended starting points for configuration. Actual values are affected by material format, data volume, and business rules. Specific issues require case-by-case analysis, and it is recommended to test against your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three Common Errors
- Symptom: Global variables defined externally cannot be read inside a loop node, and an error "variable undefined" is thrown during execution. Cause: The loop body variable scope is configured as internal only, without granting global access permissions.
- Symptom: In version v4.8.14, when the code runner node input includes historical record fields, the interface prompts a verification failure and cannot save the configuration. Cause: The historical record input check logic for the code runner node has restrictions in this version, and does not adapt to pure data processing requirements in professional service scenarios.
- Symptom: Inconsistent field units appear after due diligence report parsing, such as registered capital fields using both "ten thousand yuan" and "yuan", leading to errors in subsequent calculations. Cause: No unit consistency verification node was configured in the workflow, and no unified format processing was performed on extracted fields.
How to Confirm Proper Configuration
- Trigger a manual workflow run, check the log output of each node, and confirm that all data sources have pulled the latest data according to the configured cycle.
- Import a standard-format due diligence report document, and check whether the parsing node correctly extracts structured fields and unstructured attachment content.
- Configure a loop node and pass in external variables, verify that global variables can be read normally inside the loop body without undefined errors.
- Adjust the historical record configuration of the code runner node, confirm that input fields no longer trigger verification failure prompts.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-14.