What the documents look like
Returns refurbishment handles reverse logistics and item condition. It differs from overseas-warehouse inbound replenishment, which covers first-leg stock movement. The records for this category come from overseas warehouse WMS, TikTok return centers, Amazon return reports, and item inspection photos. Day-to-day documents are the return inspection sheet, the refurbishment record, the scrap form, and the relisting checklist. Multilingual retrieval has to align item condition, return grade, and disposition conclusion from these documents onto the same return record. Records update daily or per batch. Update frequency does not change the scope of model connection and configuration covered on this page.
Constraints at the model connections step
Model connections run through AI Proxy. App and Admin must set AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT and a non-empty AIPROXY_API_TOKEN; missing either one causes startup validation to fail. Legacy OpenAI environment variables or a single-model custom request URL cannot replace these two settings. The model ID is the value of the model field in the request body and is globally unique. The model channel determines the upstream protocol. Model mapping translates the model name requested by FastGPT into the actual upstream model name. The system needs at least one language model and one index model. Retrieval relevance does not carry permission or entity isolation duties, and the same-vector-model requirement inside a retrieval base does not extend to external systems.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a cross-border seller's after-sales supervisor organizes a batch of return inspection sheets on 10 March 2026. The source material reads: "Return R-2026-0310-07, item is refurbished earphones, inspection grade B, minor surface scratches, function normal, recommend relisting." A separate refurbishment record reads: "R-2026-0310-07 completed cleaning and repackaging, refurbishment completion date 2026-03-11." The draft sentence to be evaluated is: "R-2026-0310-07 passed inspection and was approved for relisting." That draft merges inspection grade and relisting approval into one fact. The inspection sheet records only the grade and the appearance description; it states no approving party and no approval time for relisting. The draft is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The items below relate to document retrieval and model connections for the sample above. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical exercise starting point | Reason for the choice and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT | http://aiproxy:3000 | The official example is a service root address without /v1; compare against the internal service address in the deployment template |
AIPROXY_API_TOKEN | A non-empty admin token is assumed to be entered | The official requirement is non-empty and consistent with the server; compare against the AI Proxy server configuration value |
| Model ID | Assumed as gpt-4o-test | The official example maps to upstream gpt-4o; compare against the actual model name inside the channel |
| Model mapping | {"gpt-4o-test":"gpt-4o"} | Official example structure; check whether the FastGPT request name matches the upstream actual model |
Index model defaultToken | Assumed 512 | The official field description is the default text-splitting token; compare against the retrieval text chunk length |
| Model probe interval | Assumed 30 minutes | The official range is an integer from 5 to 60 minutes; compare against the business tolerance window for model availability |
Three common errors
- Writing inspection grade B directly as relisting approval. The input is the inspection sheet text "inspection grade B, recommend relisting." The comparison object is the draft sentence "passed inspection and was approved for relisting." The observable result is that the draft contains an approval fact the source does not state, so the draft is unsupported.
- Treating the refurbishment completion date as the relisting effective date. The input is the refurbishment record "refurbishment completion date 2026-03-11." The comparison object is the approval time in the draft sentence. The observable result is that the two field names and the two actor actions differ, so they cannot substitute for each other.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization to release. The input is the inspection sheet fragment returned by retrieval. The comparison object is the approval status field in the relisting checklist. The observable result is that retrieval supplies text only and supplies no authorization status; when the approval field is absent, record the evidence gap.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source text "Return R-2026-0310-07, inspection grade B, recommend relisting." Compare whether the draft sentence contains the word "approved." The observable result is that the draft carries an approval statement while the source has no approval field, so the judgment is unsupported.
- Input the refurbishment record "refurbishment completion date 2026-03-11." Compare whether the draft sentence equates that date with the relisting effective date. The observable result is that the two field names and meanings differ, so the judgment is field mixing.
- Input the inspection sheet fragment returned by retrieval together with the relisting checklist. Compare whether the checklist contains an approval status field. The observable result is that when the checklist does not provide that field, record the evidence gap and do not judge the item as approved.