What the documents look like
A brand concession inside a shopping mall accepts the mall's unified cashiering and commission settlement. Sales receipts come from the mall POS, while the brand ERP and the finance system each keep their own records. The monthly settlement statement and the joint-operation commission contract form the basis for reconciliation. Order fulfilment and after-sales answering must map these materials to conversation records, and any comparison has to confirm the same concession, the same period and the same field. Daily and monthly update rhythms mean log checks proceed document by document and conversation by conversation, without assuming batch synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanisms.
For this page the relevant materials are the joint-operation commission contract, the mall activity letter, the sales receipt and the monthly settlement statement. In the conversation-log step these materials are matched against what the chat interface actually returns. The chat interface identifies a conversation through chatId and a dialogue under that conversation through dataId. When chatId is passed, the session is taken from the FastGPT database, the last item of the messages array is used as the user question and the remaining messages are ignored. When chatId is not passed, the context is built entirely from the supplied messages. A passed responseChatItemId becomes the response message ID stored in the database and must be unique under the current chatId. When run detail is needed, detail is set; in non-stream mode the result is held in responseData, and in stream mode it is distinguished through event. The log and the fields actually returned by the interface are the objects of checking. Business data that the interface does not return cannot be assumed to be fully retained. Retrieval and forms collect values; authorization and business execution require downstream implementation.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
The conversation log does not itself authorize after-sales handling, settle reconciliation differences or write business results. It records the exchange under a chatId and dataId, and it exposes run detail only when detail is requested. A pending handover request is not an approval. A retrieved contract is not an executed refund. A form submission is not a completed business action. The operator has to keep these states separate while matching receipts, statements and contract clauses to the dialogue that discussed them.
Hypothetical paper test case. A concession manager submits an after-sales handover request. The material text reads: "Joint-operation commission contract number A-2024-031, concession number S-118, settlement period March 2024, commission rate per contract annex two. The monthly settlement statement shows 48 mall POS sales for the period; the brand ERP records 47. Sales receipt number 31 states one return." The draft judgement sentence is: "This concession had no order-fulfilment difference in March 2024 and the after-sales matter is closed." The pending request is: "Please confirm whether the conversation log for this period contains a complete answer record about the return on receipt 31, and authorize continued handling."
This sample is a paper exercise. It is not a real customer, a real company or a real identity number. Its purpose is to show which comparison the log step can support and which it cannot.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration | Purpose on this page | Hypothetical starting value and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| appId | Locate the target application | Obtained from the application detail path; compared with body.appId or the key suffix |
| chatId | Locate the target conversation | The sample uses concession number plus period; compared with the chatId returned by the history list |
| dataId | Locate a dialogue under the conversation | Taken from the dialogue list; compared with the dataId returned by the run detail |
| detail | Obtain run detail | Hypothetical start set to true; compared with whether responseData appears in non-stream mode |
| responseChatItemId | Mark the response message | Hypothetical start uses concession number plus receipt number; compared with the uniqueness requirement under the current chatId |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | Read feedback | Hypothetical start set to true; compared with the customFeedbacks field returned by the dialogue list |
These values are hypothetical starting points for this paper exercise. They are chosen because run detail and feedback fields are needed to check the sample, and the comparison object is the field actually returned by the interface. They are not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval result or a form submission as authorized execution. In the sample the handover request is pending; a retrieved joint-operation commission contract does not mean the after-sales handling has been authorized.
- Mixing conversations from different entry points. In the sample the mall POS and the brand ERP record different counts. Merging dialogues from different chatIds hides the answer gap about the return on receipt 31.
- Assuming an unreturned field was retained. When a business field does not appear in the run detail, the data cannot be treated as fully recorded.
Corresponding checks:
- Input the sample handover request, compare the request status with the authorization boundary text, and record "pending" as unauthorized.
- Input the sample chatId and another entry-point chatId, compare the dataId sets of their dialogue lists, and record an intersection as mixed counting.
- Input the sample dataId, compare the run-detail returned fields with the required business field list, and record missing items as unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the draft judgement sentence. Compare "48", "47" and "one return" with the judgement "no difference, closed". The counts differ and the return state is not closed, so the judgement sentence is unsupported.
- Input the sample chatId and dataId. Compare the customFeedbacks returned by the dialogue list with the responseData returned by the run detail. When a field is missing, record an evidence gap rather than declaring a conflict.
- Input the sample responseChatItemId. Compare it with the uniqueness requirement under the current chatId. A repeated value is recorded as pending verification, without assuming automatic deduplication or an error.
All three checks address the conversation-log and audit task. The expected results are recorded gaps and unsupported claims; no actual test is claimed. Retrieval and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers must be checked first and non-matching records excluded.