What the documents look like
For document comparison in Refund-only disputes, this page examines FastGPT context limits. Reviewing request material does not execute a financial action or determine an appeal outcome. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the context limits step
A proposed refund-only comparison defines the current task as checking request material, with financial handling to be verified separately. An entry says materials checked, and an appeal note allows further evidence submission. A completion question first needs the distinction between reviewing material and executing financial handling in input. Checked does not complete every stage, while permission to submit evidence does not establish an allowed appeal. Reading the documents can identify their coverage, but cannot turn a review action into an actual financial operation or final decision.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Context review subject | Specific text condition | Acceptance evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Review subject | Request materials only in this task | Check complete scope sentence reaches input. |
| Recorded action | Materials checked | Retain the materials subject. |
| Further evidence | Submission may continue | Do not convert into an allowed appeal. |
| Historical suggestion | Proceed is a recommendation | Check for actual outcome evidence. |
| Manual handoff | Action subjects and missing records | Check complete format and parsing. |
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
One failure is a citation retaining checked while losing the task-scope sentence, leading the output to mark everything complete. Another is a historical suggestion to proceed being treated as an executed action. Inspect the subject of checked, the role of the suggestion and the scope qualification in actual input. Confirm actual model context capacity separately from reply length. Regardless of available input space, a missing transaction result remains an evidence gap. Additional narration cannot turn an unknown execution outcome into completion of the financial process.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance should ask which materials were reviewed, whether an actual handling result exists and what the further-evidence note means. Match outputs to the entry, scope clause and appeal note. Repeat the same question with empty history and the proposed suggestion present while retaining the unresolved financial state. A fixed handoff for manual review should preserve action subjects and required material through actual parsing, rather than transmitting complete alone. Do not add amounts or timing promises, and do not infer that handling definitely never occurred merely because its record was not supplied.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Refund-Only Application, Proof of Shipment, Proof of Receipt and Appeal Materials |
| Candidate sources | Platform After-Sales Backend, Carrier Tracking, Customer Service Chat and Warehouse Outbound Records |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |