What the documents look like
For product questions in B2B marketplaces, this page examines FastGPT model connections. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the model connections step
For a B2B selection exercise, separate the buyer’s requested customization, the supplier’s model wording and its pointer to specifications, then use company material to identify the contributor. Inspect whether those subjects and relationships travel with the original sentences, beyond detecting product terms. A buyer’s requested condition establishes no finished supplier capability. A model name also does not establish an obtained specification attachment. The answer should identify whose statement it explains and which document supports it. Meeting a requirement needs actual technical conditions; neither business scope nor customization intent supplies that comparison.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Connection or implementation check | B2B selection source | Inspection target |
|---|---|---|
| Actual input | Quoted model and certification-subject wording | Originals and conditions actually delivered |
| Source roles | Separate subject identity from specifications | No performance conclusion from identity material |
| Scope difference | Business scope and category have separate sources | A model does not adjudicate qualification or suitability |
| Specification gap | Customization lacks a technical attachment | Trace added conditions in the same question |
| Input path | This example tests text only | Inspect image or tool capability when required |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
AI Proxy dependency | Inspect services, channels and application for the deployed version. |
AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT | Use the AI Proxy service root address. |
AIPROXY_API_TOKEN | Use a nonempty administrator token matching the service. |
Model capabilities | Test capabilities required by the actual input path. |
Application parameters | Same-named interface fields need not override application settings. |
Three common errors
- If quotation specifications never enter the request but the answer claims to have read them, retain source lists and actual input. Trace selection and delivery rather than accepting a service response as source receipt.
- If different business-scope and product wording becomes a qualification or delivery-capability verdict, compare both originals and the conclusion. Obtain the relevant business evidence; model selection does not adjudicate qualification.
- If requested customization becomes a definite technical specification, trace dimensions or capabilities to their originals. Retain unsupported items as gaps and repeat the question after adding the specification attachment.
How to verify the setup
A quotation with a customization request but no technical specification leaves an evidence gap. Model parameters cannot supply the unknown specification. Dimensions, capabilities or delivery conditions mentioned in output need their respective sources. After obtaining an applicable specification attachment, repeat the question and settings, retaining source delivery and the conditions adopted in the answer. This text input does not validate image or tool paths; capability tests should follow the actual material form.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Business Certification Documents, Inquiry and Quotation Sheet, Electronic Contract and Platform Settlement Statement |
| Candidate sources | B2B Platform, National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, Payment Transaction Records and Logistics Tracking |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |