What the documents look like
Sample inspection happens before a livestream goes on air. The working question is whether a product can be sold and whether it suits live demonstration. The materials behind that question are supplier files, testing-agency reports, platform negative lists, and historical return rates, refreshed weekly or per item. This page works with four document types: the sample evaluation form, the quality inspection report, supplier qualifications, and the prohibited-sale list. Copy drafting draws subject, sample, test item, and validity period from these materials, so model connection and configuration determine whether those fields can be read and called correctly.
Constraints at the model connections step
FastGPT connects to model providers through AI Proxy. From V4.17.0, AI Proxy is a required dependency: both the App and any Admin service reusing App/Service configuration must set AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT and a non-empty AIPROXY_API_TOKEN. Missing either one fails startup validation. Legacy OpenAI environment variables or a single-model custom request address do not substitute for these two settings. The system needs at least one language model and one index model to operate normally. A model ID is the value of the model field in the request body and is globally unique; the model name is a display label that can be customized; model mapping translates the model FastGPT requests into the model actually sent upstream. Model capability is checked against the input the application needs, with multimodal, tool calling, and reasoning settings verified separately. Application parameters are set in the application or node configuration; a same-named field on a compatible chat interface cannot be assumed to override orchestration.
Hypothetical paper exercise, labelled as such: a selection manager submits one draft sentence for review. The supplied source text reads: "Sample evaluation form, batch 2026-03-02: supplier a Hangzhou household goods factory; sample, insulated flask; material marked 304 stainless steel; submitted test item, heavy metal migration; testing agency report number JC-2026-0311; report status, issued; report date 2026-03-05." The draft sentence reads: "This insulated flask has passed testing, and the 304 stainless steel liner is safe with no concerns." Review request: determine whether the source text supports that draft sentence.
Configuration and implementation checks
The settings below concern this page's documents and primary task. The values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, used for comparison against observed values; they are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| AIPROXYAPIENDPOINT | Enter the AI Proxy service root address, without /v1 | Compare character by character against the deployed address; confirm no extra path |
| AIPROXYAPITOKEN | Set a non-empty administrator token | Compare against the server-side configuration; confirm non-empty and matching |
| Language model | Enable at least one for copy drafting | Send one request in model testing and observe the return |
| Index model | Enable at least one for material retrieval | Confirm the model ID matches the channel model before enabling |
| Model mapping | Map the intended model ID to the upstream model | Check the mapping key against the upstream model name |
| Model probe interval | Take 30 minutes for this exercise | Compare against the documented 5–60 minute integer range; observe probe records |
Three common errors
- Treating "passed testing" in the draft sentence as a conclusion already stated in the materials. The source text records report status as issued and report date 2026-03-05; it does not record a passing conclusion, and it does not contain "safe with no concerns." The input is the draft sentence and the source text; the comparison is whether the source text contains a passing-conclusion field; the observable result is that the field is not stated, so the claim is unsupported.
- Treating the issued status of report number JC-2026-0311 as covering every test item. The source text lists one submitted item, heavy metal migration. The input is the draft sentence's broad wording and the source text's item field; the comparison is the scope of items; the observable result is a scope mismatch, so items must be checked one by one.
- Treating a green model probe status as proof the model capability meets the copy-drafting task. The probe reflects availability and latency only. The input is the probe status and the capability the task requires; the comparison is whether the capability field has been verified; the observable result is that the two are not the same fact, so capability still requires separate testing.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source text and the draft sentence. Compare whether the draft sentence contains a conclusion term absent from the source text. The observable result is that "passed" and "safe with no concerns" have no corresponding field in the source text, so the judgment is unsupported.
- Input the report number and the submitted test item. Compare the scope of the draft sentence's wording against the source text's item field. The observable result is that the source text lists only heavy metal migration while the draft sentence sets no item limit, so the judgment is scope-pending.
- Input the model test return and the task's capability requirements. Compare whether the return covers the input copy drafting needs. The observable result is that a successful test shows connectivity only; whether capability is sufficient still requires separate verification against the application's required input.
This page addresses one task only: model connection and configuration for copy drafting in livestream sample inspection. Whether a specific promotional sentence is supported by materials is a copy-review question and does not become an identity-certification procedure. Retrieval and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. The same-vector-model requirement for a dataset does not extend to business-registration sites or other external systems. Any system error or automatic business action not described in the source text is not asserted here.