What the documents look like
For after-sales questions in JD POP seller operations, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. Repair intake, pending verification and proposal discussion do not establish completion or agreement. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A proposed JD POP repair-dispute fixture includes an intake sheet saying item received, an inspection record saying fault verification pending and negotiation minutes saying proposal under discussion. A question about completed repair and agreement requires separate evidence for each outcome. Intake establishes receipt for handling, pending verification leaves the fault finding open and discussion does not establish agreement. Source citations must preserve these dimensions so that an intake document does not become repair-completion proof and proposal wording does not become confirmation by both parties. Intake and pending fault verification do not establish that a repair method has been selected. Negotiation wording may discuss possible handling, but it still needs relating to a verified fault. Without an inspection finding, discussed options cannot become a diagnosed defect together with an executed repair method.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Task check | Material condition | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Intake action | Item received | Do not expand into completed repair. |
| Fault state | Verification still pending | Retain the absence of a finding. |
| Negotiation identity | Proposal under discussion | Seek explicit confirmation. |
| Lost qualification | Proposal passage omits discussion state | Compare actual array with original minutes. |
| Repair subject | Result may concern another item | Match document and item identity. |
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
Two common errors need different missing materials. A repaired conclusion citing intake requires actual repair and verification results. An agreed conclusion citing discussion notes requires explicit confirmation. If a FastGPT citation array supplies proposed terms while omitting the under-discussion qualification, the answer may expand the document effect; inspect identity and qualification together. Fault verification pending also cannot become no fault found. An absent finding and a negative finding differ, and the supplied material does not authorize a judgment resolving responsibility for either party.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance questions should distinguish intake, inspection, repair outcome and proposal confirmation. Trace received to the intake sheet, pending verification and discussion to their own records, and identify results or confirmation still required for completion and agreement. Check that citations concern the same item so that another repair case does not supply an imported outcome. Empty references require tracing the current scope and passage-transfer process. A missing returned passage cannot establish that intake never occurred or that the dispute has already been resolved.