What the documents look like
For document comparison in On-demand retail fulfillment, this page examines FastGPT context limits. Match exclusions, substitution proposals and historical replies to the correct retail round. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the context limits step
A proposed immediate-retail packet excludes products containing nuts, proposes sesame crisps and supplies an ingredient page that does not state the relevant nut conditions. History contains acceptance of substitution on an earlier order. The question asks whether the current proposal is accepted and satisfies the note. Retain exclusion, ingredient gap and earlier-order identity. Names alone determine no applicable ingredient relationship, and old consent does not renew. This exercise checks input and evidential support without making a composition, dietary suitability or allergy-safety judgment about real products or the proposed substitute.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Context-material check | Input and expression conditions | Acceptance action |
|---|---|---|
| Exclusion | No nut-containing product | Check actual request retention. |
| Historical consent | Earlier order | Check current proposal attribution. |
| Ingredient gap | Relevant conditions absent | Retain unresolved state. |
| Input budget | Note and gap together | Inspect more than returned page identity. |
| Real applicability | Text guarantees no dietary fit | Seek matching 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
First, summarization may omit the exclusion; compare the current note with actual request and retain the customer’s scope. Second, earlier consent may migrate to the present proposal; inspect order, substitute and historical reference, including the same question with empty history. Third, the answer may assert satisfaction while dropping the ingredient gap; trace support and allow space for unresolved conditions. These concern condition delivery, consent attribution and insufficient-evidence expression. Additional tokens supply no ingredient evidence that is absent from the source and establish no safe or accepted substitution.
How to verify the setup
Ask what the customer excludes, what is proposed and what the current page explicitly establishes, retaining actual input and response conditions. Budget checks need both the note and ingredient gap available; a returned product page is not necessarily complete evidence. Inspect actual model window, reference limit and response length separately. Missing ingredient material remains a source requirement. This test executes no substitution or delivery and guarantees no dietary compliance. Real composition and applicability judgments require matching evidence and responsible verification beyond the proposed text and its model-generated summary.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Instant Order, Picking List, Out-of-Stock Report and Delivery Exception Order |
| Candidate sources | Douyin Instant Retail, Meituan or JD Daojia Backend, Store Inventory and Rider Tracking |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |