What the documents look like
For document comparison in Complaints and official replies, this page examines FastGPT context limits. Separate reply-drafting duties, factual attachments and intake notices while preserving verification responsibility and complaint identity. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the context limits step
An invented complaint-response commission asks a contractor to draft from verified facts while the store retains factual confirmation. Only a complainant’s account and an intake notice are attached; store verification is absent. Earlier conversation concerns a different complaint’s handling result. Intake records receipt of a matter without confirming every allegation. A complainant’s account must retain its source identity. The actual context needs both the verified-facts prerequisite and the store’s confirmation role, rather than expanding drafting into investigation. This exercise states no real regulatory procedure, liability allocation or handling deadline.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Reply-commission context | Material identity | Item-level check |
|---|---|---|
| Drafting prerequisite | Verified facts only | Retain the prerequisite in actual input. |
| Complaint account | Complainant’s statement | Do not label it established fact. |
| Intake notice | Receipt of the matter | Read the notice’s action. |
| Historical matter | Another complaint’s outcome | Trace intake identity. |
| Added verification | Store record for the corresponding facts | Update covered facts only. |
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 verified-facts prerequisite from input. Compare the full commission, excerpt and actual request to locate promotion of unverified statements into established facts. The second imports another complaint’s outcome. Hold intake identity and complaint subject fixed across history conditions instead of merging events through a shared store. The third fills a factual-determination field from the intake notice. Read its stated action and the reply’s citation after parsing; a valid table does not change the notice’s purpose. These checks concern a factual prerequisite, event identity and document type.
How to verify the setup
Ask who stated a fact, who verified it and which material records intake only. Trace each reply statement to its source. When store verification arrives, match the complaint and covered facts before repeating the questions, leaving remaining statements unconfirmed. Inspect retention of restrictions against citation-token budgets, separately from reply length and actual model context scope. A larger window does not turn an account into verification or supply a formal finding. These are invented documents without submission, contact with a complainant or an actual closed matter.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Complaint Work Order, Regulatory Inquiry Letter, Order Evidence and Rectification Report |
| Candidate sources | 12315 Platform, Platform Complaint Center, Customer Service Chat and Order System |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |