What the documents look like
For product questions in Temu semi-managed sellers, this page examines FastGPT hybrid retrieval. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the hybrid retrieval step
For the Temu semi-managed product test, begin with the name and category present in the declaration. The proposed form also has a description, but deciding whether internal standards are met requires the relevant rules; field presence alone does not establish that result. Compare initial recall for a name query and a category question, then rerank with the complete check. Note whether a long description displaces the category wording required by the question, recording recall and ordering separately.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Item or implementation check | Input or applicable condition | Traceable check |
|---|---|---|
| Fused candidates | Declared name, category and model in the price declaration | Trace each value to its declaration source. |
| Complete question | Whether standard and upgraded models refer to the same object | Retain model qualifications without merging specifications. |
| Minimum relevance | Inspect actual filtering under semantic search or reranking | Establish whether model passages existed before filtering. |
| Citation token limit | Retain the product and source conditions of model wording | Do not retain “upgraded” without its source context. |
| Missing-source retest | No quality-inspection report or status in the declaration | Add inspection evidence without inferring a pass from category data. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Hybrid retrieval | Vector and full-text results use RRF fusion. |
| Reranking | Reranking reorders candidates using the full question. |
Minimum relevance | Filtering applies to semantic search or reranking. |
Citation limit | Citation content is limited by tokens. |
Question optimization | Compare subjects and restrictions after optimization. |
Three common errors
A standard model in the product declaration and an upgraded model in the price declaration require source-specific descriptions. Trace candidates separately to each declaration. A price passage matching the question more closely cannot establish that the product model was upgraded. If only one source is recalled, inspect data scope first. When both are present, examine reranking and citation trimming for any lost conditions on either side.
How to verify the setup
Passing an internal quality inspection is a separate evidence question. The proposed declaration contains no inspection status or report, and a highly relevant category passage cannot replace that record. Before a report is supplied, check whether the answer changes “declared” into “inspected.” Once the corresponding source is obtained, repeat the original question and retain added candidates and citations. Model, category and inspection outcome each need their own support, rather than one conclusion formed by ranking. Field completeness and inspection evidence are different review objects. Record them separately in the candidate checklist. Name and category may both be retrieved while an inspection report is still absent from the material actually provided to the answer step.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Product Declaration Form, Overseas Inventory Sheet, Price Declaration and Platform Fulfillment Order |
| Candidate sources | Temu Seller Center, Overseas Warehouse WMS, Logistics Tracking and Procurement Cost Sheet |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |