What the documents look like
For document comparison in After-sales repairs and reships, this page examines FastGPT context limits. Retain requested part, spare description and receipt object in replacement-mailing inputs. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the context limits step
A proposed repair-and-mailing packet requests a silicone plug from a cup lid, lists the lid body and plug separately and has a customer acknowledging receipt of an instruction file. History records completed mailing of a whole lid. The question concerns current plug arrival. Actual input needs part relationships and the file object retained instead of applying whole-lid history or document receipt to a physical spare. The request identifies what is sought, while the spare description establishes neither stock nor dispatch or transport. No current arrival record is supplied for the plug.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Context-material check | Input and expression conditions | Acceptance action |
|---|---|---|
| Part granularity | Plug differs from whole lid | Inspect actual input. |
| Historical mailing | Earlier whole lid | Do not transfer current state. |
| Receipt object | Instruction file | Do not make it physical spare. |
| Transport gap | Current record absent | Keep unresolved in answer. |
| Added record | Request and part correspondence | Inspect identity before use. |
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 enlarge the plug into a whole lid; inspect request wording, part relationships and actual input to restore the subject. Second, historical lid completion may become current plug dispatch; compare application, product and part identity with empty-history input. Third, output may turn file received into spare received; inspect the feedback object and allow room for missing dispatch evidence. These concern part granularity, historical attribution and receipt object. Additional context creates no transport event or current handling record absent from the materials actually supplied for this request.
How to verify the setup
Ask what is missing, how spares are listed and what the customer received, retaining actual input and answer. Token-budget checks need plug-versus-lid identity and the word file. A returned receipt excerpt establishes no physical arrival. Inspect real model context separately from reply length; missing transport evidence remains missing after larger budgets. Added hypothetical records need the current part and request matched. This exercise creates no mailing order and calls no warehouse or carrier system. It establishes no restored product use, which requires independent applicable evidence beyond these proposed documents and the answer comparison.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Repair Application, Reshipment Order, Inspection Report and Parts Outbound Order |
| Candidate sources | After-Sales System, Order System, Repair Service Point and Parts Warehouse WMS |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |