What Data for This Category Looks Like
Data for this category primarily comes from risk control systems, audit records, user behavior logs, and report evidence. Update frequency is daily or real-time. Daily produced documents include ban records, appeal materials, review opinions, and user notifications. Common fields include account ID, violation type, disposal time, appeal submission time, and review result. There are no unified fixed units; values vary based on the specific content of individual records. Data focuses on account-level violation disposal and review. It centers on full-process disposal traces for a single account, and does not include cross-account global statistical data.
Constraints Imposed by These Characteristics on the Citation Sources and Traceability Link
Decentralized data sources and flexible update frequencies require the traceability link to support fast associated queries across multiple data sources, to avoid cross-system retrieval delays. Unified units and fixed formats are not available for document fields. The traceability link must automatically adapt to identification rules for different fields, to ensure readability and accuracy of cited content. Account-level disposal logic requires traceability to precisely bind full evidence for a single account. Mixing data from multiple accounts will lead to misjudgments. Real-time updated data requires the traceability link to support incremental synchronization, to ensure cited evidence is up-to-date and avoid using expired disposal records. Error outcomes are directly linked to compliance risks. Citations in the traceability link must be traceable and reproducible, to avoid falsifying or omitting critical evidence.
Configuration Settings
The following configurations apply to FastGPT v4.17.0.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
quoteMaxToken | 800–1200 token | Evidence texts for account bans and appeals typically include multiple sections of violation records, appeal content, and review opinions. This parameter controls the total token limit for a single round of citations, to avoid exceeding model context thresholds and ensure complete display of core evidence |
responseData | Only return account ID, violation type, disposal time, appeal status fields | Traceability for this category only needs to support core fields for appeal review. Filtering redundant data improves retrieval and citation efficiency, and reduces model processing load |
detail | Enabled | Full evidence chain details must be obtained, including original report content and original review opinion text, to support accurate judgment of appeal reasons and verification of review results |
| Single search limit | Top 5 entries | Violation evidence for a single account is usually concentrated within the last 30 days. Too many entries increase model processing load. The top 5 entries cover evidence needs for most appeal scenarios |
| Dynamic knowledge base binding rule | Associate corresponding risk control log library by account ID | Data for this category is stored by account dimension. Associating knowledge bases by account ID enables precise retrieval of full disposal records for a single account, and avoids mixing data across accounts |
Three Common Misconfigurations
- The symptom is that when dynamically specifying a knowledge base, no optional content appears in the reference variable dropdown of the knowledge base search node. The cause is that core fields such as account ID are not configured as referenceable global variables, or the variable scope does not cover the current workflow.
- The symptom is that different accounts’ ban source data cannot be distinguished in logs. The cause is that data sources are not grouped and stored or retrieved by account identification, leading to mixed data across accounts and inability to accurately match evidence for the target account.
- The symptom is that the citation ID output by the large language model does not match the actually retrieved evidence, and falsified citations appear. The cause is that the
detailparameter is not enabled, or the unique identifier of the retrieval result is not correctly bound to the citation tag, leading to citation tags that cannot correspond to real evidence.
How to Verify Proper Configuration
- Submit a test appeal ticket to trigger the citation traceability process, and check if the returned citation content includes ban records and appeal materials for the corresponding account.
- View workflow logs, confirm that retrieved data fields match the configured
responseDataparameter, with no redundant non-core fields. - Verify the dynamic knowledge base binding logic, switch test accounts, and confirm that retrieved evidence is exclusive data for the corresponding account, with no cross-account data present.
- Check the citation tags output by the large language model, confirm that each tag corresponds to an actually retrieved evidence entry, with no falsified or missing citations.
The values provided are common starting points and should be measured 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 2026-10-19.