What data looks like for this use case
Heat treatment scenario data originates from material grade archives, customer technical specification documents, real-time temperature control instrument data, furnace temperature uniformity test reports, test results from hardness testers and metallographic equipment, and manufacturing execution systems (MES). Data updates take place per furnace load and per batch.
Core documents include heat treatment process cards, furnace loading diagrams, furnace temperature curves, hardness and metallographic reports, equipment inspection logs, and exception handling forms. Individual documents contain fixed fields: furnace temperature parameters (unit: ℃), holding time (unit: hours), furnace load batch number, and hardness test values (unit: HV). Furnace temperature curve documents also include continuous temperature sampling point data.
Associated review logic exists across different documents: process cards guide furnace temperature curve generation, and test results must be compared against process requirements.
How these characteristics create constraints for workflow orchestration
Data update frequency for heat treatment scenarios is tightly bound to production batches. Workflows must trigger execution per furnace load to avoid mixing data across batches.
Multiple associated document types require workflows to support simultaneous calls to multi-source data such as process cards, furnace temperature curves, and test reports for cross-check review. Fixed fields and unit requirements mandate precise variable extraction rule configuration, to ensure parameter compliance with industry standards.
Data sources cover both equipment and systems. Workflows must support parameter pulling and integration across data sources to prevent review deviations caused by data silos. Continuous sampled furnace temperature data requires workflows to support long text parsing and segmented comparison.
Configuration settings
This configuration guide is based on FastGPT v4.17.0.
| Configuration Item | Recommended Approach | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Variable extraction rules | Bind fixed field mappings by document type | Heat treatment documents have standardized fields; binding enables automatic extraction of core parameters such as furnace temperature and holding time |
variables trigger condition | Trigger after each furnace load production is completed | Matches the business characteristic of data updating per furnace load |
nodeId configuration | Group by furnace load batch number | Distinguishes workflow instances for different furnace loads to prevent cross-use of data |
| Context window size | 800–1200 characters | Fits the average length of core documents for a single furnace load |
| Timeout setting | 600 seconds | Covers typical time required for data collection, multi-document parsing, and review |
| Keyword extraction limit | Top 5 entries | Matches the number of core fields in heat treatment documents, avoids redundant data interfering with review |
| Multiple knowledge base references | Bind material grade library + equipment inspection log library | Supports simultaneous retrieval of material standards and equipment operating parameters |
Three common configuration mistakes
- Phenomenon: Incorrect keyword extraction, fails to correctly identify holding time or furnace temperature parameters. Cause: No keyword extraction rules configured for the fixed format of heat treatment documents, leading to incorrect identification of non-target fields as review variables.
- Phenomenon: Global variables cannot be used in downstream nodes. Cause: Global variable transfer switch not enabled in the
variablesconfiguration, or parameter transfer link between nodes not correctly bound tonodeId, resulting in restricted variable scope. - Phenomenon: Workflow runtime error with parameter abnormality prompt, but model configuration checks pass. Cause:
nodeIdnot correctly bound to equipment nodes, preventing the workflow from associating equipment operating data for the corresponding furnace load.
How to verify a correct configuration
- Upload a single heat treatment process card, trigger the test workflow, and verify that extracted
variablesfields match furnace temperature, holding time and other content marked in the document. - Switch documents for different furnace load batches, check that
nodeIdis correctly bound to production data of the corresponding batch, with no cross-batch data mixing. - Run a workflow with multiple knowledge base references, confirm that material grade standards and equipment inspection log parameters can be retrieved simultaneously to complete cross-check review.
- Simulate an exception scenario where furnace temperature exceeds the set range, check whether the workflow triggers the generation process of the exception handling form to complete closed-loop review.
The values provided are common starting points and should be validated against samples from the actual operational context.