What the Data for This Category Looks Like
This category covers documents related to the full mold lifecycle, including mold design task sheets, DFM reports, part drawings, machining process cards, trial mold reports, mold modification notices, and mold records. Data sources include customer product models, mold flow or forming simulation results, CAD/CAM output files, machining and measurement data, and test sample inspection records. Data is updated per individual project, with new document versions generated synchronously after each trial mold or mold modification. Each individual document contains clear process parameters, dimensional tolerances, and defect rectification records.
Constraints on Multi-Turn Dialogue and Prompt Engineering
The data characteristics of this category impose clear constraints on multi-turn dialogue and prompt engineering configurations. Documents of multiple types with large structural differences require multi-turn dialogue to gradually disambiguate associated information across different documents, avoiding context overload caused by loading full data at once. Following the update rhythm of projects and trial mold/modification cycles, configurations must explicitly limit the context scope of the current project to prevent calls to outdated document data. The need for cross-verification of multi-source data requires multi-turn dialogue to gradually check parameter consistency across different sources, avoiding error propagation from a single data source. Clear process parameters and tolerance requirements within documents require configurations to precisely match fields and units, preventing parameter mismatches.
Configuration Specifications
This configuration is based on FastGPT v4.17.0. Specific parameters are as follows:
| Configuration Item | Recommended Approach | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
chatId | Bind to the current project ID | Lock the context scope of the current review task to avoid confusion across project data |
messages | Retain the first 5 interaction records | Filter redundant interactions and focus on the core steps of the current review |
variables | Bind to mold number and project number | Add exclusive identifiers for the current task to strengthen context locking |
| Request Timeout | 600 seconds | Adapt to the time-consuming requirements of cross-source data cross-verification to avoid mid-process interruptions |
| Maximum Context Length | First 1200–1800 characters | Match the average length of a single core document for this category, avoiding context overload |
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Phenomenon: After multiple rounds of interaction during multi-turn review dialogue, the accuracy of returned parameter matching decreases, and results return to accurate after opening a new dialogue. Cause: No truncation rule for
messagesis configured, and outdated invalid interactions are mixed into the context, interfering with logical judgment of the current review. - Phenomenon: Cross-project mold data is incorrectly associated with the current review task when calling multi-turn dialogue. Cause: No exclusive identifier for the current project is bound via
chatId, leading to incorrect locking of the context scope. - Phenomenon: The unit of dimensional parameters in review results generated by prompts does not match the requirements of the part drawing. Cause: No parameter verification rules are bound via
variables, and unit matching requirements for document fields are not explicitly defined.
How to Verify Proper Configuration
- Manually enter the mold number and core document content of the current project to trigger multi-turn dialogue, and check whether the context only includes data related to the current project.
- Conduct more than 5 rounds of interaction, and check whether the conversation history is automatically truncated according to the configured retention number without redundant content.
- Enter parameters with different units, and check whether the system triggers parameter unit verification and returns matching results.
- Switch to mold data from other projects, and confirm that it cannot be associated with the context information of the current review task.
The values provided here are common starting points and should be evaluated against the reader's own samples.