What the documents look like
For document comparison in Multi-store management, this page examines FastGPT context limits. Inspect store applicability and attachment scope before using older-store terms in a follow-up. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the context limits step
A hypothetical store A supplement applies only to its current replenishment, leaving B’s matter for separate discussion. B’s draft proposes reusing a table format. Conversation history confirms another handover for A. Matching tables do not transfer contractual contents, and current replenishment differs from the historical handover. Inspect whether store, matter and the only-applicable limitation remain in the actual request before interpreting a follow-up about this store. An earlier A confirmation cannot become B’s agreement here. Reusing a format supplies no additional contractual scope.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Multi-store contract context | Task restriction | Actual inspection |
|---|---|---|
| Store scope | A’s current replenishment only | Retain the full limitation. |
| B draft | Reuse of format only | Add no transfer of all terms. |
| Historical matter | Another A handover | Inspect store and event references. |
| Responsibility table | Store, matter and clause ownership | Trace fields after parsing. |
| Added B attachment | Entity, matter and version | Repeat the follow-up to check scope. |
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 input clips A’s current-only condition down to replenishment generally, compare the full supplement, actual input and output subject to locate the lost store/matter limitation.
- If a B follow-up borrows A’s historical handover, hold the current draft fixed across history conditions and inspect store and event references.
- If reusing a table format becomes adopting every term in a responsibility table, inspect the draft verb and attachment references. Format inheritance supplies no substantive commitment.
How to verify the setup
Ask which store and matter are covered and whether the reused element is a format or an agreement. Trace actual input and comparison fields. When B’s formal attachment arrives, check entity, matter and version before repeating the follow-up. A newer date alone does not establish wholesale replacement. Inspect citation-token budgets separately from reply length and the model’s actual context scope. Parse a structured response before checking store and clause ownership. Business applicability follows the supplied document wording.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Store Authorization List, Price Control Sheet, Channel Diversion Complaint Form and Monthly Sales Report |
| Candidate sources | Various Platform Seller Backends, ERP Channel Prices, Brand Anti-Counterfeiting System and Dealer Reports |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |