What the documents look like
Customer-service knowledge maintenance covers FAQ entries, reply templates, product parameter tables and escalation tickets. The work organizes question-and-answer material in advance and does not approve refunds or returns directly. Typical sources are the customer-service system, product detail pages, after-sales question statistics and quality spot checks. The people involved are customer-service supervisors, knowledge-base operators and product operators. Common failure outcomes are answers that miss the question, escalated complaints and failed agent training.
For order fulfilment and after-sales question answering, the share-and-embed step hands already-prepared reply material to outside users through a no-login window link. FastGPT generates a temporary accessible address for that window, and usage costs fall to the team that owns the application. The link identifier itself is not a business authorization. The no-login window creates a localId for each user and pulls conversation records from the cloud, but this only holds on the same device and the same browser. Switching devices or clearing browser cache loses those records, so the system allows pulling only the last 30 days and 20 records.
Constraints at the shared access step
Identity verification is a POST request root address. Initialization, conversation start and conversation end each send a request to that address. The server returns only whether verification succeeded. On success, data.uid must be returned as the user's unique credential, formatted as a string that does not contain "|", "/" or "\\" and is no longer than 255 bytes; otherwise the system returns the Invalid UID error. Expiry time, QPM, point cap and identity verification are partly configurable only in the commercial edition.
Hypothetical paper exercise: a knowledge-base operator creates a link under Application details - Publish channel - No-login window, names it "After-sales FAQ trial", configures an identity-verification root address, and appends authToken=userid12345 to the share link. Material available for checking reads as follows. The FAQ entry states: "Within seven days after order shipment, an exchange may be requested, and the order number and a product photo must be provided." The reply template states: "Exchange requests are reviewed by the after-sales specialist in the ticket system; the knowledge base supplies the reply wording only." The escalation ticket states: "This ticket is pending review and no handler has been assigned." A draft sentence to be judged reads: "The share link has been configured with identity verification, and the exchange request submitted by the external user through that link has been approved." That draft merges link configuration with business approval. The source material shows no exchange request approved.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Starting value in this hypothetical exercise | Comparison and check method |
|---|---|---|
| Name | After-sales FAQ trial | Used for record display only; compare against the stated link purpose |
| Expiry time | Not specified; confirm configurability against the actual edition | After this time the link cannot be used; check whether it falls inside the valid period |
| QPM | Not specified; confirm configurability against the actual edition | Maximum visits per user per minute; compare against access logs |
| Point cap | Not specified; confirm configurability against the actual edition | Maximum billing data produced by the link; compare against cost ownership |
| Identity verification | Root address entered, not the full path | Initialization, conversation start and conversation end send requests to that address |
| Real-time running status | Not specified; confirm configurability against the actual edition | Whether currently running nodes are shown; compare against interface observation |
The selection basis is the parameter list in the official document. The starting values above are this hypothetical exercise's starting points and are not official defaults. When the identity-verification interface returns success as true, the user may continue; uid is used to pull and save conversation records.
Three common errors
- Treating the share link identifier as business authorization. Input is a link containing shareId; the comparison object is the source wording that exchange requests are reviewed by the after-sales specialist; the observable result is that the link opens while the material shows no approval record. An accessible link does not mean an exchange request has been approved.
- Treating identity-verification configuration as request execution. Input is the identity-verification root address and authToken; the comparison object is the "has been approved" wording in the draft sentence; the observable result is that the interface returns success and uid while the material shows no approval action. A pending-review status does not show that the request was approved.
- Treating localId records as cross-device session assurance. Input is the same authToken opened on a different device; the comparison object is the documented same-device, same-browser limitation and the 30-day, 20-record boundary; the observable result is that records may be lost after a device switch. A record-pull boundary does not mean cross-device synchronization.
How to verify the setup
- Check the identity-verification interface. Input is a POST request whose body carries token=[authToken]; the comparison object is whether the returned success is true and whether data.uid meets the format; the observable result is success as true and a uid without "|", "/" or "\\" and no longer than 255 bytes. The expectation is that verification passes; this was not actually tested.
- Check the draft sentence against the source material. Input is the draft sentence "The share link has been configured with identity verification, and the exchange request submitted by the external user through that link has been approved"; the comparison object is the source wording that exchange requests are reviewed by the after-sales specialist and that the ticket is pending review; the observable result is that the material shows no approval action. The expectation is that the draft sentence is unsupported by the material; this was not actually tested.
- Check the record-pull boundary. Input is the same authToken opened on another device; the comparison object is the documented limit of the last 30 days and 20 records plus the same-device, same-browser condition; the observable result is that records may be lost. The expectation is that cross-device records are not assured; this was not actually tested. Missing evidence stays missing, and a pending review is not an approval.