What data looks like for this category
Data for this category comes from safety production supervision systems, enterprise self-inspection systems for hazards, law enforcement inspection records, and accident statistics systems, with a daily update frequency. Commonly processed documents include hazard inspection lists, hazard management ledgers, rectification notices, review records, and major hazard suspension and supervision orders. Data fields include standard items such as hazard level, rectification responsible person, rectification deadline, and review results. All fields use general formats for supervision and self-inspection, with no additional custom content.
What constraints these characteristics impose on workflow orchestration
The daily update feature of multi-source data requires the workflow to support docking with multiple system interfaces to enable real-time pulling of hazard-related data. Diverse document structures and standardized field requirements require the workflow to adapt to field passing across different documents via parameter binding. The time-consuming standard inspection, tracking rectification, and review archiving links require the workflow to split each link into independent nodes for easy step-by-step configuration and debugging. The severe consequences of errors require the workflow to configure a failure trigger mechanism to ensure timely alerts and process termination when anomalies occur.
How to set configurations
Reference only; verify against the target FastGPT release and deployment documentation.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Question optimization component | After the agent node | Inquiry related to hazard inspection requires organizing user questions first, matching regulatory standard terms before calling the inspection logic |
| Max context length | 800–1200 characters | Must carry key fields from multiple documents such as hazard inspection lists and rectification notices to avoid truncating core information |
| Single recall count | Top 3 entries | Matches the number of single-batch hazards in daily inspections, avoids redundant information interfering with agent calls |
variables | Bind hazard level, rectification responsible person, rectification deadline fields | Adapt to standardized fields across different documents, enable dynamic transfer of workflow parameters |
nodeId | Bind the review record node | Automatically synchronize review results to the hazard management ledger to complete closed-loop archiving |
| Timeout setting | 600 seconds | Adapt to response times of multiple system interfaces, avoid process interruption due to excessive data waiting |
| Retry count | 3 times | Adapt to failure retry requirements for multi-node calls, avoid process interruption from single anomalies |
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Phenomenon: The question optimization component is placed incorrectly, preventing user inquiries from matching hazard inspection standard terms. Cause: The component was not placed before the agent call node, directly calling the agent caused term matching to fail.
- Phenomenon: Running the workflow prompts missing parameters, with logs showing the
variablesfield is empty. Cause: Required fields from the hazard management ledger were not bound to workflow variables, causing process interruption. - Phenomenon: Files uploaded via simple applications cannot be passed to workflow tools. Cause: The file parameter receiving switch was not enabled in workflow configuration, so uploaded file links cannot be recognized.
How to Confirm Proper Configuration
- Trigger a test inquiry, check whether the question optimization component correctly organizes the consultation content and matches terms related to hazard inspection.
- View workflow run logs, confirm that fields bound to
variableshave been correctly passed to corresponding nodes. - Upload a test file, verify that the workflow tool can normally receive and process the file link.
- Simulate a rectification and review process, confirm that the
nodeId-bound review record node can synchronize data to the hazard management ledger.
The values provided are common starting points and should be evaluated against the reader's own samples.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-28.