What Data for This Category Looks Like
The data for this category primarily comes from risk control systems, audit records, user behavior logs, and report evidence. Daily produced documents include ban records, appeal materials, review opinions, and user notifications. Core fields cover account unique identifiers, violation type tags, appeal submission time, reviewer ID, disposal result level, and notification sending status. Data update rhythms are divided into two categories: daily batch synchronization and real-time single-item push. The field length of single-item data varies greatly. Appeal material attachments may include multi-format files, and associated logs for ban records continue to be appended as the audit process progresses. This page is compatible with FastGPT v4.17.0.
What Constraints These Characteristics Impose on Workflow Orchestration
Decentralized data sources and inconsistent update rhythms require workflow orchestration to support scheduled pulling and real-time triggering of multiple data sources, to avoid review deviations caused by data asynchrony. Core documents contain multi-format attachments and associated logs, so the workflow must configure variables to store different types of document fragments, and support classified archiving by document type. Account-level disposal processes have strict serial logic, so nodeId must be used to bind the execution order of each link, ensuring that user notifications are only triggered after review opinions are generated. The dynamic append feature of data fields requires the workflow to support dynamic updating of node input parameters, to avoid process interruptions caused by missing fields. In addition, the error consequences of false bans or returning of violating accounts require the workflow to configure exception branches to intercept abnormal disposal results and ensure compliance.
How to Configure Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Data Source Trigger Mode | Trigger via real-time pushes from risk control systems, supplemented by daily full synchronization as a fallback | Appeal tickets submitted in real time exist in account ban and appeal data; real-time triggering shortens the review response cycle, while daily synchronization is used to supplement missing historical data |
| Variable Storage Rule | Split and archive via variables by document type, with each variable bound to the input and output of the corresponding node | Documents in this category include multi-format attachments and associated logs; split storage avoids context confusion and improves node call efficiency |
| Node Execution Order Binding | Bind nodeId in the order of "Evidence Verification → Appeal Judgment → Disposal Adjustment → Notification Sending" | Account review processes have strict serial logic; previous link verification must be completed before entering the next node |
| Node Timeout Period | 600 seconds | The appeal review link for this category requires evidence verification and manual judgment; 600 seconds covers the time required for most normal processes |
| Attachment Domain Name Replacement | Enable automatic replacement of IP plus port prefix after image upload | Original upload links are mostly internal test addresses; replacing them with the platform's own domain name ensures that attachments in notifications can be accessed normally |
| Question Classification Recall Count | Top 5 entries | Appeal reasons for this category usually contain 1 to 3 core violation points; the top 5 entries cover classification needs for most scenarios |
Three Common Configuration Mistakes
- Phenomenon: After enabling the image upload function in the workflow, the generated attachment links still use the IP plus port format and cannot be accessed via the public network. Cause: No domain name replacement rule was configured, and the link prefix of the upload node was not replaced with the platform's own domain name.
- Phenomenon: An error related to
$schemaoccurs when configuring advanced orchestration nodes, prompting that the field format does not meet the requirements. Cause: The field structure ofvariableswas not correctly bound, resulting in input parameters that do not meet the preset JSON format specifications. - Phenomenon: The "Question Classification" node cannot correctly identify the violation type in the appeal reason. Cause: The violation tag output by the risk control system was not used as the node input parameter, and the classification rules were not adapted to the exclusive violation tag system of this category.
How to Verify Correct Configuration
- Manually submit a test appeal ticket, observe whether the workflow executes each link in the order bound by
nodeId, with no skipped nodes or incorrect execution order. - Upload a test image to the appeal ticket, check whether the generated attachment link has been replaced with the platform's own domain name and can be opened normally.
- Simulate an exception scenario, such as deleting a piece of associated risk control data, confirm whether the workflow enters the preset exception branch and triggers the manual review process.
- View the document fragments stored in
variables, confirm that different types of documents have been classified and archived according to the rules, with no field confusion or context overlap.
The configuration values listed above are common starting points. They should be evaluated against the reader's own specific samples and use cases.
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.