What the documents look like
For product questions in MCN operations, this page examines FastGPT document chunking. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the document chunking step
A new proposed MCN training record says, “The demonstration sample is a trial pack; live-stream gifts are listed in the account-schedule note.” Parsing should preserve the different roles of demonstration sample and gift. A trial pack must not become the promised gift simply because both concern the stream. Compare both clauses with parsed output, then ask separately what was demonstrated and what the gift is, checking whether the available text supports only the first question. Keep demonstration sample and gift attached to their respective clauses, including where a section heading is removed during parsing. Availability of the schedule note needs actual original data; related training content does not establish that the note was supplied. A proposed failure output can say “the gift is a trial pack.” If parsing merges the clauses this way, compare the original, parsed passage and retrieved location: the original assigns the trial pack only to demonstration. Locate that role merge without changing the scheduled gift.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Item or implementation check | Input or condition | Traceable evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Parsed roles | Demonstration sample versus live-stream gift | Do not turn the trial pack into a gift. |
| Chunk completeness | Skincare scope with the accessory exclusion | Retain the exclusion and its object. |
| Original data and indexes | Independent training and contract records | A search summary must not invent a promotion arrangement. |
| Sample retrieval | Separate demonstration and gift questions | Identify which question currently has source support. |
| Post-update review | Account-schedule note missing | Inspect parsing and index state after addition. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Original-document check | Compare original files with parsed output. |
Chunk completeness | Keep conditions traceable to their subjects. |
Data and indexes | Retain original-data and index evidence separately. |
Sample retrieval | Retest literal wording and natural questions. |
Post-update check | Inspect training or index state after updates. |
Three common errors
A proposed influencer contract can add a focused exclusion test: “Promotion covers skincare products and excludes device accessories.” Keep the exclusion with the scope wording. A chunk containing only “device accessories” cannot establish permission to promote them. Inspect original data and indexes separately, retaining the independent contract and training-record identities. Shared references to live commerce do not justify combining the documents into an unsupported promotion arrangement. A second failure is a retrieved segment containing device accessories without the same clause’s exclusion. Compare the original scope sentence, cited chunk and index to distinguish a condition lost during parsing from an intact condition missed by retrieval. A noun match cannot restore the promotion scope.
How to verify the setup
When the account-schedule note is absent, the gift question lacks its direct source. Record the material needed without allowing parsing or generation to fill in a product name. Once the note is obtained, inspect parsed wording and processing or index state before repeating the question. If the note exists in the original but not the output, preserve its location and the query result, distinguishing missing input, parsing loss and failed recall rather than treating upload success as available gift evidence.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Influencer Contract, Training Records, Violation Handling Form and Account Scheduling |
| Candidate sources | MCN Backend, Platform Violation Notice, Influencer Account Data and Contract Ledger |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |