What the documents look like
For after-sales questions in Brand member operations, this page examines FastGPT HTTP integrations. General rules apply within an activity’s scope. Permission to read sources and the result of a notification still require their own evidence, with no real personal data in this public example. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the HTTP integrations step
A public member-campaign inquiry can use general rules and hypothetical text without querying or sending real personal records. Proposed material supplies arrangements and coupon wording with a permission gap, not actual sending or usage. Inspect the real external contract, business authority and needed scope without deriving CRM access from a tag. Plans, configuration, execution and reception require distinct evidence.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Service-reading check | Proposed material | Required evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Public scope | General rules and activity arrangements | No real personal records |
| Activity identity | Another activity’s rules introduced | Inspect period and subject |
| Notification result | Plan separate from reception source | Plan is not received communication |
| Access evidence | Permission wording without its origin | Nonempty input is not authority |
| Actual operation | Separate sending, coupon handling or writing | Reading is not completed review |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Request address and method | The request address and method follow the external contract. |
Params and Headers | Inspect parameters, headers and authentication separately. |
| Body | Where a JSON body is used, validate its structure against the external contract. |
Variable references | Variables can come from global, system or upstream outputs. |
Debug identity fields | Test mode lacks chatId and responseChatItemId. |
Three common errors
Wrong activity rules returned: Another activity’s rules require activity and applicability checks. Planned notification mistaken for reception: Planned notification described as received needs separate sending and reception sources. Permission wording substituted for authority: A request saying authorized without corresponding evidence requires inspection of permission origin; a populated parameter is not reading authority. These concern subject, stage and access evidence rather than established relationships from a successful interface call.
How to verify the setup
Retain general sources, activity scope, actual request and response. Repeat after corresponding rules or authorization guidance arrive without personal public examples. Check headers, business parameters and any appropriate body separately under the contract, keeping credentials private. Sending, tagging, coupon handling and retention require business authority and receipts. Reading establishes neither effects, delivered service nor completed personal-data review.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Member Tagging Sheet, Engagement Plan, Coupon Rules and Privacy Authorization Records |
| Candidate sources | CRM System, WeCom, POS Consumption Records and Mini Program Behavior Data |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |