What the documents look like
For procurement in After-sales repairs and reships, this page examines FastGPT scheduled workflows. Repair-parts procurement review separates customer requests, inspection findings and actual use. Dispatch records do not automatically create new purchase demand. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the scheduled workflows step
Proposed preparation uses a repair application, pending retest and candidate parts. Existing dispatch material does not identify the repaired item. Periodic review checks diagnosis and use relationships rather than decide purchases from customer descriptions. Establish the actual trigger and read scope, then inspect this run’s passages. A matching part model does not establish suitability, and released parts prove neither installation nor a need to replenish inventory.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Repair procurement review | Proposed source state | Evidence basis |
|---|---|---|
| Repair application | Customer description | Not decided parts demand |
| Inspection state | Retest pending | Actual diagnosis |
| Candidate parts | Unapproved | Purchase decision |
| Dispatch record | Installation subject unspecified | Actual usage |
| Subsequent execution | Purchase, repair and writes separate | Review is not a repair guarantee |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Trigger responsibility | Inspect the available trigger and responsible component. |
Data reads | External read interfaces require explicit configuration. |
HTTP requests | Construct requests and check variables against the external contract. |
Repeated-trigger responsibility | Implement deduplication, idempotency and writes explicitly. |
Execution records | Inspect actual triggers, inputs and business responses. |
Three common errors
Application promoted to purchase demand needs real inspection evidence. Released parts promoted to installation require work correspondence. Candidate parts promoted to approved purchasing need the actual decision. These inspect demand basis, usage stage and procurement status independently of a scheduled task.
How to verify the setup
Retain input, read result and pending retest. Added diagnosis changes supported part relationships only while missing stock or installation remains unresolved. Old lists cannot replace new evidence. Purchasing, parts use, repair and stock writes need separate authority and receipts. Inspect repeated triggers under actual implementation. Review establishes neither completed repair nor guaranteed fit or repair performance.
| 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 |