What the documents look like
For document comparison in B2B marketplaces, this page examines FastGPT context limits. Does the actual long-document and follow-up input retain the contract's restriction? The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the context limits step
The proposed contract limits service to the blue items in the current batch, with a later statement requiring separate confirmation for other colours. Mark both passages before inspecting the content actually received by the model. Check whether the batch and colour restrictions remain present. Model context, citation tokens and reply length govern different stages; compare their actual inputs to locate a lost condition. Reply length alone is insufficient acceptance evidence. A condition omitted before model input cannot be recovered by requesting a longer reply.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check | Input review for this test | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Model context | Inspect the actual model's accepted scope | Batch, blue-item scope and other-colour condition retained |
| Reply length | Inspect the reply setting separately | Output length does not conceal absent contractual evidence |
| Citation limit | Inspect token-based citation trimming | Service scope and exception remain paired |
| History input | Compare empty history with red-item history for the same follow-up | Earlier conditions are not applied to the current source |
| Structured handoff | Separate parsing checks from source verification | No delivery fact created without receipt evidence |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Model context | Use the actual model’s accepted context scope. |
Reply length | The reply limit differs from the context window. |
Knowledge-reference limit | Knowledge citation limits are token-based. |
History-input check | Compare empty-history and populated-history inputs. |
Structured-output handoff | Validate parsing, then inspect support for field values. |
Three common errors
- If the blue-variant batch and separate-confirmation condition never reach the request, compare full source and actual input to locate the loss. Extending the reply cannot restore them.
- If historical red-variant terms enter a black-variant follow-up, hold the current contract constant across history conditions and inspect colour, batch and referent.
- If structured output marks goods received without receipt evidence, validate parsing and then field support. Correct format supplies no delivery event.
How to verify the setup
The contract contains no receipt evidence supporting an actual delivery event. List the missing receipt separately from input-length issues and inspect the reply for an invented event. Where the output is consumed structurally, test parsing and required-field presence first, then trace each value to its source. After obtaining the receipt, repeat the original and follow-up questions. Record document additions separately from length-setting changes so that valid formatting or complete prose is not mistaken for factual support.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Business Certification Documents, Inquiry and Quotation Sheet, Electronic Contract and Platform Settlement Statement |
| Candidate sources | B2B Platform, National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, Payment Transaction Records and Logistics Tracking |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |