What the documents look like
For document comparison in Marketplace returns, this page examines FastGPT context limits. Compare return registration, parcel checks and refund instructions while preserving parcel identity and stage evidence. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the context limits step
An invented returns agreement has support register a request, a warehouse inspect the returned parcel and provide an opinion, and a refund proceed under a confirmed instruction for this order. Only registration and a parcel-delivery notification are supplied. No inspection opinion or confirmed instruction appears. History concerns another processed order. Registration, transport delivery, contents inspection and a refund instruction are separate actions. A delivery notification does not describe the goods inside. A long conversation must retain this order’s identity and the prerequisite for a warehouse opinion rather than manufacture a completed chain from the word return.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Return-agreement context | Supplied or absent material | Corresponding check |
|---|---|---|
| Registration | Current application register | Supports registration only. |
| Transport | Parcel-delivery notification | Does not establish contents inspection. |
| Warehouse opinion | Currently absent | Retain the separate-opinion prerequisite. |
| Historical order | Another processed order | Check order and parcel identifiers. |
| Refund execution | No instruction or execution record | Keep the stage unconfirmed. |
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
The first error clips the warehouse-opinion prerequisite from input. Compare the full agreement, actual request and stage table to locate the missing condition; delivery alone does not establish completed inspection. The second borrows another order’s processed status. Hold registration material fixed across history variants and trace order and parcel identities. The third populates an executed-refund field from an application form. Inspect the current confirmed instruction and actual execution record after parsing. A populated field creates no financial action. Stage, identity and execution evidence require separate checks.
How to verify the setup
Ask which step is supported, which parcel it concerns and which record remains absent. A later warehouse opinion supports only its stated inspection findings; refund instructions and execution require their own records. Inspect citation tokens separately from output length and retain evidence of the model’s accepted context scope. A larger budget does not supply an absent warehouse conclusion. This exercise gives no refund rule, deadline or amount and claims no actual money movement. Its output maps invented documents to supported and unconfirmed stages.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Refund Application, Return Logistics Order, Quality Inspection Photos and Refund Approval |
| Candidate sources | Platform After-Sales Backend, Customer Service Chat, WMS Receiving and Payment Refund Records |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |