What the Data for This Category Looks Like
This category’s data originates from EAM/CMMS systems, equipment sensor collection terminals, operator inspection records, maintenance history ledgers, spare parts inventory lists, and statutory inspection archives. Update cycles include shift-based inspection submissions, daily/weekly/monthly maintenance plan releases, and real-time fault reporting. Daily business documents cover equipment ledgers, inspection forms, maintenance plans, work orders, fault analysis reports, spare parts lists, and special equipment inspection records. Fields include equipment numbers, rated operating parameters, measured values at inspection points, spare part models, and inventory quantities. Units include millimeters, pascals, operating hours, and other standard units.
Constraints Imposed on Workflow Orchestration
Data sources for this category are dispersed, and update frequencies vary widely. Workflows must support triggering multiple data sources at different times. For example, trigger routine reviews when shift inspections are submitted, and trigger emergency validations when faults occur. Document formats and structures vary. Workflows must adapt to parsing different types of business documents. This prevents loss of critical parameters due to format incompatibility. Error consequences are severe. Workflows must include cross-check steps. For example, cross-check spare parts inventory against maintenance needs, and verify the timeliness of statutory inspection records. Maintenance windows must align with production scheduling. Workflows must support linkage with production scheduling nodes. This ensures review steps do not consume core production time.
How to Configure the Workflow
Current version is FastGPT v4.17.0. All configurations below are designed for the workflow module of this version.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| File Link | Bind the data source paths of ledgers, inspection forms, and spare parts lists for the corresponding equipment group | Covers core business documents for this category, ensures complete review data |
| User Query | Preset "Check if current inspection records match equipment ledger parameters" and "Does spare parts inventory meet maintenance needs" | Aligns with equipment inspection and preventive maintenance business scenarios, reduces ineffective retrieval |
| Knowledge Base Selection | Bind the dedicated knowledge base for the corresponding equipment group, pass the equipment ID for filtering via variables | Accurately matches historical documents and inspection records for this equipment, avoids interference from cross-equipment data |
| Global Variable Assignment | Use nodeId as the identifier, write work order numbers and inspection times to global variables | Enables cross-node data transfer, unifies context for review workflows |
| Single Search Limit | Top 5 results | Matches the scenario where a single device has a moderate volume of associated documents, avoids interference from redundant data |
| Maximum Context Length | 800–1200 characters | Adapts to the dense field structure of equipment documents, retains critical parameters and exception records |
Three Common Configuration Mistakes
- The workflow returns fewer than 3 results after execution, and the interface displays "No search results found". The cause is failure to bind the dedicated knowledge base for the corresponding equipment. Only the global knowledge base is used for retrieval, which cannot match device-specific documents segmented for this category.
- The workflow times out after triggering, and logs show timeout status codes. The cause is failure to configure trigger timing according to equipment inspection update frequencies, and failure to limit the number of single search results. This leads to loading excessive sensor data and historical work orders.
- Global variables fail to correctly pass work order numbers. This prevents review results from linking to corresponding maintenance tasks. The cause is failure to bind
nodeIdto the work order number field, and variable assignment format does not meet system requirements.
How to Verify Successful Configuration
- Manually trigger the inspection review workflow for the corresponding equipment. Check if returned search results include the equipment’s ledger, inspection form, and spare parts list.
- View the global variable panel. Confirm that the equipment ID in
variablesand thenodeIdidentifier have been correctly written to the current review context. - Simulate a fault trigger scenario. Verify that the workflow starts the review link according to the preset update frequency when a fault occurs.
- Check the workflow’s anomaly alert node. Confirm that alerts are triggered when statutory inspection records are overdue.
The values provided are common starting points, and should be evaluated against the reader’s own samples.