What the documents look like
For product questions in Regional dealer stock, this page examines FastGPT vector indexes. Whether basic and regular versions identify one item needs catalogue-version correspondence. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the vector indexes step
A proposed regional-dealer exercise has an earlier catalogue naming a basic version, a replenishment table naming a regular version and a technical note describing folding only for the regular version. No renaming relationship is supplied. A folding question about the basic item cannot transfer the newer property from similar everyday names. Entries may provide old-name and new-name routes, but need independent originals and versions preserved. Missing structure for basic establishes neither non-folding nor automatic renaming to the item in the newer table.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Original-data/index check | Specific subject relationship | Acceptance action |
|---|---|---|
| Earlier name | Basic version | Retain earlier source identity. |
| Newer attribute | Regular version folds | Do not transfer to basic. |
| Name relationship | Rename not established | Seek actual correspondence. |
| Entry target | Older name may target newer page | Check version and product. |
| Added-correspondence retest | New relationship and actual citation | Verify original adoption. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Embedding model | Knowledge bases associated with one search node must use the same embedding model. |
Original data and indexes | One original data block can have multiple indexes. |
Index content | Index wording should be complete and focused. |
Image indexes | Where image retrieval is used, inspect descriptions or image vectors. |
Version and result check | After a change, reuse questions to compare originals. |
Three common errors
First, an older-name entry may directly add folding; inspect property evidence for that version. Second, the basic entry may target the new table without identity qualification; inspect target version and any renaming relationship. Third, after correspondence material is added, the older entry may still target another technical item; inspect mapped subject and actual citation. These concern attribute transfer, name relationships and update targets. A newer catalogue date or common dealer cannot establish equivalence, and the number of search entries cannot establish a confirmed rename.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance should ask what each source calls its item, which source states folding and whether name correspondence exists. Keep source identity explicit. Current material can describe separate names and the regular version structure while leaving the basic-item relationship unresolved. Later correspondence needs its product and version scope checked before processing and index inspection, followed by same-question adoption checks. Several entries for one original do not mean near-synonymous names in different originals identify the same product. That relationship still requires the actual matching document rather than an assumption built into a search phrase.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Replenishment Request, Inventory Turnover Sheet, Outbound Order and Payment Collection Plan |
| Candidate sources | Dealer ERP, Brand Ordering System, Warehouse Inventory and Sales Collection |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |