What the documents look like
For document comparison in Brand member operations, this page examines FastGPT context limits. Retain audience, campaign and permission restrictions in membership comparisons. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the context limits step
A proposed membership packet limits a campaign to people who actively sign up, contains a draft inviting every member and describes signup information as intended for communication about this campaign. The question asks whether that draft has textual support. Actual input needs active signup and this campaign retained, rather than generalizing participants into all members or one communication purpose into others. History may concern a public invitation for a different campaign. This exercise checks hypothetical source scope without deciding real privacy compliance or permission validity, and a prepared draft is no sent notification.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Context-material check | Input and expression conditions | Acceptance action |
|---|---|---|
| Campaign audience | Active signups | Retain scope in input. |
| Purpose limitation | Current-campaign communication | Do not expand in answer. |
| Draft addition | Every member | Trace supporting text. |
| Historical campaign | Other public invitation | Inspect identity and reference. |
| Actual action | No sending or label change | Do not claim execution. |
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 drop the signup restriction; compare campaign wording with actual input and inspect delivered audience scope. Second, a wider invitation from another historical campaign may migrate here; check campaign identity and permission wording, including the same question with empty history. Third, the answer may keep contact allowed while omitting current-campaign purpose; inspect output conditions and reply space. These concern audience, historical campaign and answer scope. A larger context window automatically expands neither source applicability nor rights to contact people whose conditions are absent from the packet.
How to verify the setup
Ask whom the campaign covers, what communication signup wording describes and what the draft adds, comparing actual request with answer. Reference budgeting should retain audience and purpose together; returning a file establishes no delivery of those clauses. Inspect model context and reply allowance separately against actual capabilities and task. Sources that do not cover every member still require matching evidence. This page sends no message, changes no CRM label and makes no compliance decision. Real sending and permissions require their own applicable sources and responsible confirmation beyond this comparison.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Member Tagging Sheet, Engagement Plan, Coupon Rules and Privacy Authorization Records |
| Candidate sources | CRM System, WeCom, POS Consumption Records and Mini Program Behavior Data |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |