What the documents look like
Conversation logs for creator commission settlement and commission deduction center on four document types: commission setting records, settlement statements, refund commission deduction details, and invoices. Settlement happens after a sale closes, so the checking focus falls on valid promotion and after-sales commission deduction. Data sources include the selection alliance backend, order after-sales data, the finance system, and creator contracts. Update frequency is weekly or monthly.
The documents carry material identities that the log and audit step must keep aligned. A commission setting record names a creator, a livestream room, a product, a date range, and a commission ratio that the settlement statement governs. A refund commission deduction detail names an order, a refund date, and the statement period in which the commission is deducted. These are the fields a conversation record has to correspond to before any export or reconciliation request can be treated as scoped.
The interface contract for this step comes from the FastGPT v4.17.2 conversation interface document. A chatId identifies one session under one application. A dataId identifies one dialogue under one session. The detail parameter decides whether intermediate values and complete results return. The source parameter separates sessions created through the API from sessions created on the page. The responseChatItemId parameter marks the response message ID for one exchange. None of these fields carries business authorization, and none of them confirms that a commission record, a refund deduction, or an invoice was verified.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Check the target session and the business record together through chatId. Sessions from different entry points are not combined into one total. When the conversation interface run detail is needed, set detail according to the official contract and inspect responseData. Check the log against the fields the interface actually returns; business data that did not return cannot be treated as fully retained. Identity fields in a test mode may differ from a formal call, so check the input, the history, and the returned content separately. Reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements are carried out by a complete business plan. The presence of a log does not mean a compliance audit is complete. Retrieval and similarity do not carry permission or entity isolation, and a similarity setting cannot be used to exclude unrelated business or unauthorized records.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A commission setting record reads: "From March 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025, creator A promotes product X in livestream room A; the commission ratio follows the settlement statement." A refund commission deduction detail reads: "Order Y was refunded on March 20, 2025; the corresponding commission is deducted in the March statement." A pending handover request reads: "Please export all of creator A's March session logs to finance for checking the commission deduction." The request names a subject, an object, and a period, but it does not state whether the export scope is limited to livestream room A, and it does not state an authorization status.
The request is pending. It is not an approval, and it is not an execution. The scope limit is unstated, and the authorization status is unstated. Both remain evidence gaps.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Use on this page | Value and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| appId | Locate the target application and check session ownership | Compare the application identifier in the sample with the value passed in the request body |
| chatId | Locate the target session and check the business record | Compare character by character with the session identifier in the commission record |
| detail | Decide whether intermediate values and complete results return | The sample check takes true and inspects whether responseData is present |
| responseChatItemId | Mark the response message ID for this exchange | Compare with existing IDs under the same chatId and confirm uniqueness |
| source | Separate API sessions from page sessions | With the value api, only sessions created through the API are retrieved |
| pageSize and offset | Control the read range of the session or dialogue list | This exercise starts at pageSize=20 and adjusts to the checking period |
The starting value pageSize=20 is a hypothetical exercise starting point chosen because the session volume in this period is small enough for item-by-item comparison. The comparison object is the actual returned total and the length of list. This is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating a similarity score as a permission filter. The input is a score returned by retrieval; the comparison object is the business ownership field; the observable result is whether the score level corresponds to the authorized scope. The score does not exclude unauthorized records.
- Treating the presence of a log as a completed audit. The input is the session record list; the comparison object is the finance reconciliation and compliance retention requirement; the observable result is whether the log fields match the business plan requirement. Record the gap where they do not match.
- Using a test-mode identity field directly for a formal check. The input is the identity field returned by the test call; the comparison object is the appId and chatId passed in the formal call; the observable result is whether the two agree. Check them separately where they do not agree.
How to verify the setup
- Against the sample text, input the commission setting record and the refund commission deduction detail, and compare whether creator A, livestream room A, order Y, and the March 2025 period correspond under the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The condition is met when all four agree. Record any disagreement as pending verification.
- Against the pending handover request, input the request text and the authorization boundary field, and compare the requested export scope with the authorized scope. The condition is met when the requested scope falls inside the authorized scope and the authorization status is explicit. Where the request does not state them, keep the evidence gap.
- Against the detail setting, input a request with detail=true and compare whether responseData appears in the return and whether the fields match the official contract. The condition is met when the fields appear and are readable. Where they do not appear, record the actual observation.