What the documents look like
Knowledge-base maintenance for customer service turns FAQ entries, script templates, product parameter tables and escalation tickets into reference material for front-line answers. The material supports store staff and internal training; it does not approve refunds or returns. In the store-service and training setting, the same FAQ entries are read during shifts and embedded through a share link as training material. Updates follow weekly and monthly cycles, and the time-consuming steps are collecting frequent questions, rewriting standard replies and synchronizing new product parameters. Quality sampling and after-sales statistics feed the content.
The share-and-embed step has a narrow scope. A link is an access entry point, not an authorization decision. Conversation records depend on a local identifier tied to one device and one browser. Identity verification and usage limits depend on the edition in use. These three facts shape what the training owner can and cannot treat as settled.
Constraints at the shared access step
A no-login window is created under App details - Publish channel - No-login window, and the generated full link is copied. The name recorded there is for display only. The link identifier locates the application; it is not a business authorization credential.
Expiry time and QPM are set per usage scope; QPM is the maximum number of visits per user per minute. The points cap bounds the maximum billable data produced by that link, and the cost belongs to the team that owns the application. Identity verification is a POST request root address. Initialization, conversation start and conversation end each trigger the corresponding interface, and the server returns success and uid; FastGPT uses success to decide whether the user may continue. Conversation records rely on a localId generated for each user, which only holds on the same device and same browser. Switching devices or clearing browser cache loses those records, and only the most recent 30 days and 20 records can be pulled.
Hypothetical paper exercise: A store training lead prepares an FAQ entry whose source text reads: "Return and exchange requests must be submitted within seven days of signed receipt; requests past that period are registered by the store duty supervisor and forwarded to the after-sales team for review." A script template reads: "When a customer asks about shipping time, the reply follows the shipping timeframe shown on the product detail page." A proposed sentence awaiting review reads: "Store staff may directly approve return and exchange requests made after seven days." That proposed sentence conflicts with the source phrase "forwarded to the after-sales team for review" and does not meet the source condition.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented setting or check | Link to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Publish channel | Create the link under App details - Publish channel - No-login window; the name is for display | The training link is generated there and named for training use |
| Expiry time | After this time the link cannot be used; some parameters depend on edition | Set against the training period and check whether the edition supports it |
| QPM | Maximum visits per user per minute | Check against expected trainee reading load; no number is preset |
| Points cap | Maximum billable data produced by the link | Check the training-period cap and team cost ownership |
| Identity verification | POST root address returning success and uid; commercial-edition scope | When connecting the store system, check the returned fields; the link is not authorization |
| Conversation record boundary | localId depends on same device and browser; 30 days and 20 records | Tell trainees that records do not carry across devices |
Hypothetical starting value for this exercise: set the expiry time to the training end date, because that date matches the training period; compare it against the end date on the training schedule. This value is a hypothetical setting for this page, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating the share link as an authorization credential. Input: the training link and the trainee identity. Comparison: the success and uid fields returned by the identity verification interface. If access through the link alone is taken as proof that the trainee holds operational permission, the access entry point has been mistaken for an authorization decision.
- Treating retrieval similarity as entity isolation. Input: an FAQ retrieval request. Comparison: the returned quoteList together with datasetId and collectionId. If the similarity setting is assumed to exclude unrelated stores or unauthorized records, retrieval has been confused with permission.
- Writing a pending state as approved. Input: the registration record of an escalation ticket. Comparison: the ticket status field and the review result. If a ticket that is only registered and not reviewed is written as a completed return approval, a pending state has been treated as approval.
How to verify the setup
- Input the FAQ source text above and the proposed sentence "Store staff may directly approve return and exchange requests made after seven days." Compare the proposed sentence against the source phrase "forwarded to the after-sales team for review." If the proposed sentence claims store staff may approve directly, it does not match the source and is judged unsupported by the source.
- Input the return sample from the identity verification interface. Compare the success field and the uid field. If success is true and uid is a string without "|", "/" or "\" and no longer than 255 bytes, the documented condition for continuing is met; if success is not true, the message error is shown, which is the failed-authentication branch.
- Input the paper input [] for empty-result handling. Compare how the downstream design handles an empty quote list. If the downstream design has no fallback notice for an empty list, record it as a design gap to be filled. This check does not claim that a fictitious rule retrieval must return [].
All three checks address this page's sample and request and were not actually executed. The retrieval check observes returns and failure branches only; it does not guarantee a first hit or full recall. Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together; check identifiers first and exclude those that do not match. The optional paths shown in the overall flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them. Image retrieval requires the corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking requires the model and must be enabled by setting.