What the documents look like
For after-sales questions in Livestream sample inspections, this page examines FastGPT conversation logs. A sample-service question can be misanswered as a bulk-supply promise. History review preserves the distinction among the sample, inspected subject and actual procurement batch. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
A proposed customer asks whether bulk goods match the sample. The assistant cites “appearance can remain under observation” from sample evaluation but declares this batch’s quality confirmed. Link the conversation identifier to the questioned procurement batch and inspect returned evaluation excerpts under the detail contract. A qualified sample opinion cannot become bulk acceptance. Missing batch evidence establishes an evidential gap without proving defective goods or promising uniform future supply.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Sample-service review | Proposed scope | Evidence basis |
|---|---|---|
| Customer question | Bulk goods match sample? | Current procurement batch |
| Sample opinion | Observation continues | Not passed acceptance |
| Referenced subject | Specimen, not all arrivals | Batch correspondence |
| Reused answer | Old reply without new evidence | Current actual citation |
| Entity material | Qualification is not product quality | Does not fill inspection gap |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Conversation identity | Associate the target conversation with source identities. |
Run details | Inspect runtime details against the interface contract. |
Field meanings | Use the fields actually returned. |
Debug and production calls | Inspect input differences between test and actual calls. |
Business-audit responsibility | Implement reconciliation and retention in the broader solution. |
Three common errors
Changed subject: Sample records applied to bulk goods need report-subject and procurement-batch relationships. Qualification removed: Continued observation rewritten as approval requires the complete evaluation passage beside the assistant summary. Old answer promoted to current review needs this inquiry’s added evidence and actual citation. These inspect coverage, conclusion strength and answer basis; qualification titles cannot replace them.
How to verify the setup
Retain sample wording, the customer question and citation scope. Repeat after adding batch inspection and inspect which claims become supported and which remain unresolved. Supplier entity documents alone should not change product-quality conclusions. Returns, supplier handling and formal service decisions need other business records. Logs review explanation boundaries without performing inspection or extending sample results to all batches.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Sample Evaluation Form, Quality Inspection Report, Supplier Qualifications and Prohibited Sales List |
| Candidate sources | Supplier Information, Testing Agency Report, Platform Negative Catalog and Historical Return Rate |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |