What the documents look like
For product questions in Cross-border settlements, this page examines FastGPT model connections. Identify which product questions settlement entries support, separating model connectivity from complete specification evidence. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the model connections step
Cross-border settlement material may include product entries, while its primary purpose concerns funds collection and reconciliation. A new proposed attachment supplies only a product name and settlement classification, without specifications or use conditions. Inspect delivery of those originals to the model before checking whether output converts a financial classification into product performance. The current source cannot verify such a selection conclusion. It needs the relevant product documentation; a successful service response does not establish that specification evidence is complete.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Connection or implementation check | Input for the settlement selection question | Acceptance trace |
|---|---|---|
| Actual originals | Product name and settlement classification | Delivery to the model request |
| Source purpose | Funds entries do not supply specifications | No expansion into performance or suitability |
| Entry correspondence | Retain settlement and ERP wording separately | Obtain product or order-linking evidence |
| Specification gap | Use and technical conditions need sources | Trace additions sentence by sentence |
| Retest scope | Same question, settings and actual input form | Separate service response from source completeness |
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 settlement entries are presented as read without reaching the request, inspect export version, source selection and model input. Retain service responses separately from evidence of field delivery.
- If similarly named settlement and ERP entries become the same product, compare identities and answer, then obtain product or order correspondence. Name resemblance cannot establish that mapping.
- If a financial category becomes a specification or capability-for-use claim, trace each addition. Without technical conditions the judgment remains unverifiable; add product evidence and repeat the question.
How to verify the setup
Suitability for a use requires the use requirement, technical conditions or applicable description; a financial entry does not provide them. Trace any added dimension, capability or use conclusion sentence by sentence and record unsupported statements. After adding the product source, hold question and application settings constant, retaining the service response, actual input and originals adopted in the answer separately. The text test does not validate unused image or other capabilities. A changed input form requires the corresponding test rather than an assumption about coverage.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Platform Settlement Statement, Exchange Rate Sheet, Service Fee Invoice and Collection Reconciliation Sheet |
| Candidate sources | Platform Settlement Center, Bank Statement, Payment Institution Backend and ERP Orders |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |