What the documents look like
Advertising on marketplace traffic adjusts bids against traffic and conversion in near real time, so order fulfillment and after-sales question records arrive from several directions at once. Transaction data from Juliang Qianchuan, JD Kuaiche and Alimama sits alongside the store's own fulfillment records, and one buyer's inquiry may begin on an advertising landing page before moving to in-store customer service. Conversation logs are therefore grouped by chatId, and sessions that entered through different doors are not pooled into one count. The advertising data refreshes daily or hourly, while the conversation log and audit step keeps its own retrieval pattern: records are pulled as needed.
The documents handled at this step are the delivery plan, the keyword report, the audience package description and the conversion attribution table. For order fulfillment and after-sales question answering, the working material is the conversation record itself: which chatId it belongs to, which order it concerns, which module responses were returned, and what the order status field actually says.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity rests on chatId. Per the official documentation, when chatId is a non-empty string the request uses that ID for the conversation, automatically takes the session from the FastGPT database, and treats the last item in the messages array as the user question while ignoring the remaining messages. When chatId is not passed, the context feature is not used at all and context is built entirely from the submitted messages. Before matching a target conversation against a business record, confirm that chatId is unique and shorter than 250 characters.
Run details require detail=true under the official contract. In non-stream mode the result is held in responseData, which carries fields such as moduleName, moduleType, runningTime, tokens, quoteList and completeMessages. Business data that is not returned cannot be assumed to have been fully retained. The existence of a log does not complete a compliance audit; reconciliation, retention and compliance obligations belong to a full business solution implemented separately.
Hypothetical paper exercise: on 10 March 2025 a delivery specialist checks the after-sales answer for one in-store order. The material supplied for checking reads: "The buyer of order A-20250310-07 asked about refund progress under chatId usdAP1GbzSGu, and the service reply was 'submitted for review'. This session was created through the API, with source api." A draft sentence awaiting judgment reads: "The refund for this order has been completed." The object of checking is the conversation record under chatId usdAP1GbzSGu together with the fulfillment status of order A-20250310-07. The authorization boundary is checking only: no refund is executed and no order status is modified.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| chatId | usdAP1GbzSGu | Taken from the sample material and shorter than 250 characters; compared character by character with order A-20250310-07 to confirm the same session |
| detail | true | The moduleName and tokens fields inside responseData are needed; compared against the detail=false return structure to confirm the fields are present |
| stream | false | Allows responseData to be read directly; compared against the event-based separation used when stream=true |
| source | api | The sample session was created through the API; compared against the source values of page sessions to exclude non-API origins |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | true | Custom feedback is to be read; compared against a return that omits the parameter to confirm the customFeedbacks field |
| pageSize | 10 | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise, covering the sample conversation; compared against the total field to confirm no record is missed |
These are implementation checks for this page, not documented default settings. The chatId value is a hypothetical starting point drawn from the paper exercise, and the comparison is made against the order record. No scheduled trigger, hidden control or automatic business action is assumed.
Three common errors
- Treating a request with an empty chatId as the same session. The documentation states that when chatId is not passed, the context feature is not used and context is built entirely from the messages array. Merging such a request into the statistics for
usdAP1GbzSGuconfuses conversation identity. The check is to inspect each record and confirm that chatId is non-empty and identical. - Treating a field absent from responseData as retained. The documentation notes that response values differ between modules and suggests logging them to inspect the current values. When the sample's responseData does not return a particular business field, that data cannot be assumed to be fully retained. The check takes the field names actually returned as the reference.
- Reading "submitted for review" as a completed refund. In the sample material the service reply is "submitted for review", while the draft sentence says the refund "has been completed". Under review and completed are mutually exclusive values of the same status field. The check compares the actual value of the order status field; when no completion time or completion evidence is recorded, the judgment is pending verification.
How to verify the setup
- Input: chatId
usdAP1GbzSGufrom the sample material and order number A-20250310-07. Comparison: whether the chatId in the conversation record matches the chatId in the order record character by character and is shorter than 250 characters. Observable result: a match satisfies the condition; a mismatch or an empty chatId is recorded as identity unconfirmed. - Input: a request with detail=true and stream=false against the sample conversation. Comparison: the moduleName, moduleType and tokens fields actually returned in responseData against the expected checking list. Observable result: fields that are present and readable satisfy the condition; a missing field is recorded as not returned, and retention is not presumed.
- Input: the draft sentence "The refund for this order has been completed" and the status field of order A-20250310-07. Comparison: whether the actual value of the status field matches "completed". Observable result: an explicit completed status satisfies the condition; a status of "submitted for review" or one not stated is judged unsupported, and the evidence gap is preserved.
A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Retrieval and relevance scores do not perform authorization or entity isolation, and a similarity setting does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Where the documentation provides no error code or observation, the page states what to compare and leaves the outcome unknown.