Brand concession operations: model connections for multilingual work

What the documents look like

Brand concession operations at a shopping mall work from four recurring document families: the joint-operation concession contract, mall activity letters, sales receipts, and the monthly settlement statement. The data comes from the mall POS, the brand ERP, mall member campaigns, and the finance system. The defining commercial condition is that the mall collects payment centrally and settles on a concession percentage, so the sales flow and the settlement amount are recorded on the mall side while the brand side reconciles against the contract terms.

For cross-border materials and multilingual retrieval, these documents may exist in more than one language version. A retrieval system therefore has to cover contract clauses, activity conditions, and settlement detail across those versions. The daily and monthly update rhythm of these materials does not by itself create any retrieval feature on this page.

Constraints at the model connections step

Model connections run through the AI Proxy service. In the App/Admin shared configuration, AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT holds the AI Proxy service root address and does not carry an appended /v1; AIPROXY_API_TOKEN holds a non-empty administrator token that must match the server side. Missing either one causes startup validation to fail. The system needs at least one language model and one index model to operate normally. Model channels are configured on the administrator model provider page, and a channel test returns a test result and request duration for each model. Model status probing applies only to currently enabled system models; after a first failed probe request the system retries automatically up to 3 times, so a single round makes at most 4 attempts, and only when all four fail is the model finally judged abnormal.

Hypothetical drill sample: one concession has a joint-operation concession contract whose original text states that the concession rate for this contract is twenty-two percent of the month's tax-inclusive sales, that the settlement cycle is the calendar month, and that the second party must confirm the mall-provided monthly settlement statement by the fifth of the following month. A separate mall activity letter states that the activity period runs from March 1 to March 31 and that the activity concession rate is eighteen percent. A draft sentence awaiting judgment reads: "During the March activity the concession rate for this counter settles at eighteen percent." This draft must be compared field by field against the contract text and the activity letter text: same counter as subject, March as period, concession rate as field. The contract records twenty-two percent, the activity letter records eighteen percent for the activity period. These are the same field with different values. Whether the activity letter overrides the contract, and whether the activity period overlaps the settlement cycle, both require confirmation from the original text. The authorization boundary for the retrieval request is limited to the contract and activity letter already uploaded for that counter.

Configuration and implementation checks

The following are hypothetical trial starting points for this page, used to check how configuration items correspond to the sample materials. They are not official defaults.

Three common errors

1. Entering AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT as a full request address with /v1 appended. The input is an address carrying /v1; the comparison object is the documented root address format; the observable result is an address-related error at startup validation or during channel calls.
2. Substituting an application API key for AIPROXY_API_TOKEN. The input is an application-side key; the comparison object is the documented server administrator token; the observable result is a token validation mismatch.
3. Treating a retrieval result as an authorization basis. The input is a contract fragment returned by retrieval; the comparison object is the signature and effective status of the contract original; the observable result is a retrieval hit whose authorization status remains unverified.

How to verify the setup

1. Enter the contract text and the activity letter text from the hypothetical sample, then compare the draft sentence "During the March activity the concession rate for this counter settles at eighteen percent" against the same field in both originals. The contract records twenty-two percent and the activity letter records eighteen percent; these are the same field with different values. The observable result is that the draft disagrees with the contract original on the concession rate field, and the scope of the activity letter still needs confirmation.
2. Enter the retrieval request from the hypothetical sample and compare whether the returned items stay within the contract and activity letter already uploaded for that counter. The observable result is that returned entries fall inside the authorized range; if material outside that range appears, record it as an out-of-bound observation. Retrieval relevance does not perform permission filtering.
3. Enter the monthly settlement statement reconciliation request from the hypothetical sample and compare the statement amount against the calculation results for the contract concession rate and the activity letter concession rate. The observable result is which rate basis the amount matches; if it matches neither, record it as pending verification rather than a negation or conflict. An empty result can be checked against downstream design using the explicit paper input [], without asserting that a fabricated-rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty result.

Related reading

• self-host/config/env
• self-host/config/model/intro
• FastGPT model connections