What the documents look like
Letter-of-credit document examination and presentation centres on the issuing bank notice, UCP600 clauses, freight forwarder bills of lading and bank presentation records. The working objective is document consistency against the bank's payment conditions. Compared with export tax rebate filing, this category turns on matching documents rather than matching tax positions. The documents handled each cycle are the letter of credit, commercial invoice, bill of lading, insurance policy and draft, and the data updates per transaction. A conversation log and audit layer has to answer a narrower question: which session a given after-sales question about an examination or presentation belongs to, which materials were relied on at that time, and which fields the system actually retained.
The supporting materials arrive from several sources at once. The issuing bank notice carries the terms that must be satisfied; UCP600 clauses govern how those terms are read; the freight forwarder bill of lading and the bank presentation record show what was actually tendered. Because the data refreshes per transaction, a log entry is only meaningful when it is tied to one identifiable transaction and one identifiable session. A conversation record that cannot be tied back to a specific letter of credit cannot support an after-sales answer about that letter of credit.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity rests on chatId. When chatId is not passed, FastGPT does not use database context and the context is built entirely from the messages supplied. When chatId is a non-empty string, the system retrieves the session from the database and uses the last item of the messages array as the user question, ignoring the remaining messages. The chatId must be unique and shorter than 250 characters. An audit check therefore has to confirm first that the chatId of the target conversation matches the business record, and conversations from different entry points must not be merged into one count.
When run detail is needed, set detail=true according to the official contract. In non-stream mode the result is held in responseData; in stream mode the distinction is carried by event. Values for different modules inside responseData may vary between versions, so the current values have to be logged and inspected first. Business data that does not appear in an interface response cannot be assumed to have been retained in full.
Hypothetical paper exercise. The source material reads: "The issuing bank notified letter of credit L/C-2025-0310 on 10 March 2025, requiring the consignee field of the bill of lading to state the name of the issuing bank, with a presentation period of 21 days after shipment." The draft sentence under review reads: "This letter of credit permits the consignee field of the bill of lading to state the buyer's name, with the presentation period handled as 30 days after shipment." The question is whether the draft sentence agrees with the source material.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| chatId | Non-empty string, shorter than 250 characters, must be unique | Confirms the identity of the question session |
| detail | Set to true when run detail is required | Checks what responseData retains |
| responseChatItemId | When passed, stored as the response message ID; must be unique under the current chatId | Locates a specific conversation record |
| source | When listing sessions, source=api returns only sessions created through the API | Separates entry-point origins |
| body.appId | Recommended in the chat/completions request body | Confirms the target application |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | Optional read of custom feedback when listing conversations | Checks whether feedback fields were retained |
The value in this table is a hypothetical starting point for this exercise. The 250-character chatId limit comes from the official documentation and is used here to compare length against the intended chatId. The detail value of true is used to compare returned content against a detail value of false.
Three common errors
- Merging sessions with different chatId values. The error appears as treating conversation records from two entry points as the after-sales answer for one examination and presentation. The check is to input the session lists for two different chatId values, compare the returned chatId fields, and observe whether they are listed separately.
- Treating a detail=false response as a complete run record. The error appears as inferring module run status from the answer text in choices. The check is to call once with detail=false and once with detail=true, compare whether responseData appears in the return, and observe which fields are absent.
- Treating the existence of a log as a completed compliance audit. The error appears as assuming that a returned conversation record satisfies reconciliation, retention and compliance requirements. The check is to examine the reconciliation and compliance documents separately established in the business plan, compare log fields against required business fields, and observe the gaps.
How to verify the setup
- For the draft sentence in the hypothetical sample, input the source material and the draft sentence, then compare the consignee field of the bill of lading. The source states the issuing bank's name; the draft states the buyer's name. The two values are mutually exclusive on the same field, so the draft sentence is judged inconsistent with the source.
- For the presentation period in the hypothetical sample, input the source material and the draft sentence, then compare the presentation period field. The source states 21 days after shipment; the draft states 30 days. The values differ on the same field, so the draft sentence is judged unsupported by the source.
- For chatId uniqueness, input the intended chatId together with the existing session list, compare whether the length is below 250 characters and whether the value already exists, and observe whether both the uniqueness and the length condition are met. If a complete session list cannot be obtained, record the point as unsupported and pending confirmation.
All of the above is paper review. No interface was actually called, and no test, deployment or approval is claimed to have taken place.