What the documents look like
For multilingual work in Complaints and official replies, this page examines FastGPT vector indexes. Trace the complaint, draft response and submission receipt while preserving unresolved facts in both languages. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the vector indexes step
A hypothetical complaint extract attributes a missing-part allegation to the buyer and leaves the warehouse recheck awaiting a reply. A draft proposes explaining the investigation’s progress, without a submission receipt. The English counterpart must retain the speaker and pending warehouse response. An entry saying missing parts confirmed would promote the allegation to a verified fact; response accepted would introduce acceptance by the recipient. The originals can support an account of evidence currently held and evidence still missing. A complete draft does not establish a regulatory submission. No actual complaint outcome, applicable legal rule or response deadline is supplied.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Complaint translation check | Proposed original | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Attributed statement | Buyer alleges missing parts | Keep the claim with its speaker. |
| Recheck stage | Warehouse reply pending | Inspect the actual reply and its matter. |
| Draft identity | Proposed progress explanation | Separate it from a delivered version. |
| Receipt meaning | Acknowledgment of material | Read its words without adding factual endorsement. |
| Added evidence | Recheck and submission records | Update only the conclusions each supports. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Embedding model | Knowledge bases associated with one search node must use the same embedding model. |
Original data and indexes | One original data block can have multiple indexes. |
Index content | Index wording should be complete and focused. |
Image indexes | Where image retrieval is used, inspect descriptions or image vectors. |
Version and result check | After a change, reuse questions to compare originals. |
Three common errors
- If the buyer’s allegation becomes warehouse confirmation in an entry, inspect the attributed statement and pending recheck to locate an actual source for confirmation.
- If a draft becomes a formal submission, inspect version identity, a submission record and the receipt. Finished wording is not evidence of delivery.
- If receipt of material becomes endorsement of every fact, read the actual acknowledgment and review outcome to distinguish arrival from a decision.
How to verify the setup
Ask in both languages who said what, whether the warehouse replied, whether the draft was submitted and what the receipt establishes. Follow actual citations sentence by sentence. When recheck evidence and submission receipts arrive, verify matter identity and update their respective stages separately. Language entries for the same original still need speaker and version attribution. Check embedding-model consistency within the associating search node. Fact verification and formal response procedures require their own actual evidence. This exercise submits no response and assigns no liability.
| 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 |