What the documents look like
For after-sales questions in MCN operations, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. Appeal receipt, responsibility review and draft talking points retain their distinct states. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A proposed MCN aftersales packet includes an appeal entry saying materials received, a responsibility review marked pending and a training explanation draft proposing supplementary talking points. A question about whether the dispute was withdrawn needs a withdrawal decision, which none of these passages supplies. Receipt concerns collection progress, pending concerns the review stage and the draft concerns preparation. Citations must retain document identity and action subjects so that preparing an explanation does not become a formal conclusion or receipt become support for the appeal.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Task check | Material condition | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt progress | Materials received | Check recorded action and subject. |
| Responsibility state | Review remains pending | Cite the pending-review wording. |
| Draft qualification | Talking points remain preparatory | Check proposed wording and draft identity. |
| Withdrawal conclusion | No formal decision supplied | Obtain the decision material. |
| Passage coverage | Training-only references omit review sheet | Inspect the content actually supplied. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Associated knowledge bases | Knowledge bases associated with one search node must use the same embedding model. |
Citation output | The output is an array; an empty array can continue. |
Citation input handoff | Inspect citations actually received by the answer step. |
Citation display check | Trace displayed sources to their originals. |
Document-validity check | Inspect source identity and applicable version separately. |
Three common errors
Investigate two risks independently. A citation may omit the proposed qualification from the training draft, making a suggestion appear settled; compare the version and note with actual citation content. Alternatively, materials received may be expanded into responsibility excluded, which requires a review decision rather than a receipt entry. A FastGPT source label provides a location clue but cannot decide responsibility. Where the review remains pending, preserve that state instead of deciding that either party has already received a favourable finding from the available text. A third error turns an explanation draft into actual communication. The explanation draft also does not establish that its wording was communicated externally. Preparation, actual communication and acceptance each require their own evidence. This fixture supplies preparation material only, so internal talking points cannot become a completed conversation or a resolved dispute simply because the draft exists. Inspect actual sending and receipt records rather than using a draft state as the communication event.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance questions should separate what was received, what explanation is being prepared and what responsibility finding exists. Trace answers to the entry, draft and review sheet respectively. Identify the formal decision material still required, retaining the draft identity and pending-review qualification. Also inspect a populated citation array containing only training material to see whether the answer improperly completes the dispute judgment from its tone. Empty references call for checking scope and content transfer; they do not establish that an appeal was never registered.