What the documents look like
For product questions in General export declarations, this page examines FastGPT model connections. Distinguish an absent purchase order or specification from the content actually delivered to the model. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the model connections step
The proposed commercial invoice names electronic components, while the task asks whether that name matches a purchase order. First establish whether the order was actually supplied and which original reached the model request. The invoice name alone cannot complete a two-document comparison. Use that distinction in the connection test: retain the service response, delivered sources and generated answer separately. Inspect whether the model claims a match despite lacking the purchase-order text. Connectivity and sufficient comparison evidence are different acceptance objects.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Connection or implementation check | Input condition | Acceptance trace |
|---|---|---|
| Source delivery | Invoice name supplied; inspect the purchase order separately | Retain originals actually included in the request |
| Service response | Connectivity concerns the call path | Record source completeness independently |
| Two total-price statements | Retain invoice and contract category text separately | Inspect omission before the request |
| Application or node settings | Compare the same question under the same settings | Adopting a statement alone does not diagnose a fault |
| Specification evidence | Detailed technical information is absent | Retest delivery and cited conditions after adding the specification |
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 only an invoice name arrives but the answer claims agreement with a purchase order, retain the request and statement. Check whether the order was obtained and delivered, beyond service connectivity.
- If both sources arrive but distinct categories become one record, retain their identities and returned text. Locate generation overwrite; changing channels cannot decide which business record to accept.
- If a broad electronic-component name becomes a claim that a particular model meets requirements, trace specification and use evidence. Leave the judgment unresolved until actual documentation is supplied and retested.
How to verify the setup
The invoice has no detailed technical specification. The broad name electronic components cannot establish whether a particular model meets a requirement. Inspect whether the answer preserves that evidence gap and identifies the specification and model conditions still needed. This example supplies text, so validate that input path first. After obtaining the specification, repeat the original question under the same application settings, checking both source delivery and the conditions cited. A configuration change is not supplementary product evidence.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Export Declaration Form, Commercial Invoice, Packing List and Contract |
| Candidate sources | China International Trade Single Window, Customs Code Database, Freight Forwarder Bill of Lading and Enterprise ERP |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |