What the documents look like
FBM orders are fulfilled by the seller, and the seller also sets the return address. Platform warehouse inspection does not apply. The working materials for this category are the order picking list, the shipment confirmation form, the return address setting, and the logistics tracking sheet. These materials are produced per order or per day, and they record state rather than authorization.
Operations handover in this category turns on who may confirm shipment, who may change the return address, and who may read the tracking sheet. A form collects values. A retrieval hit returns content. Neither of these is an approval, and neither substitutes for the authorization judgment that handover requires. During deployment and upgrade, the current running version and the target version must be confirmed first, then the authorization state recorded in the materials must be checked against that version context.
Constraints at the upgrades step
Deployment and upgrade here covers image updates, upgrade script execution, and configuration checks. The V4.17.2 upgrade note lists two manually triggered scripts: the historical chunk training task migration (20261008_migrate_chunk_training) and the dataset rebuild status migration (20261009_migrate_dataset_rebuild_status). The second depends on the first having completed. Neither blocks service startup. Before execution, all old-version FastGPT App and Pro instances must be confirmed stopped and old task leases expired.
On configuration, AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT and AIPROXY_API_TOKEN are required; missing either causes startup validation to fail. FILE_TOKEN_KEY, AES256_SECRET_KEY, and INVOKE_TOKEN_SECRET are required at runtime. These constraints act on the authorization and state judgments made from handover materials.
Hypothetical drill sample: the material text reads "Order picking list PO-2026-0417 shows picking complete; shipment confirmation form SC-2026-0417 has status pending review; return address setting RA-2026-0417 retains the previous address; logistics tracking sheet LT-2026-0417 records that the carrier has collected the parcel." The proposed judgment sentence is "This order has completed shipment confirmation and the return address change may be executed." The source text carries a subject (order number), objects (shipment confirmation form, return address setting), states (pending review, previous address retained), and a validity scope (2026-04-17). A pending review state does not demonstrate approval. Retaining the previous address does not show that a change was authorized.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table addresses authorization-state checking for this page's sample. Values are hypothetical starting points for this drill, with the reason for selection and the comparison target stated.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | Check and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT | Assume http://aiproxy:3000 | Compare whether a /v1 suffix is appended; the documented root address does not append a chat interface path |
AIPROXY_API_TOKEN | Assume a non-empty value | Compare against the server-side configuration for consistency and non-emptiness; an empty value fails startup validation |
FILE_TOKEN_KEY | Assume a random strong key | Compare length against the documented minimum of 6 characters; documented guidance advises against example values |
AES256_SECRET_KEY | Assume a random strong key | Compare length against the documented minimum of 6 characters; required at runtime |
INVOKE_TOKEN_SECRET | Assume a random strong key | Compare length against the documented minimum of 32 characters; required at runtime |
| Upgrade script precondition | Assume old instances are stopped | Compare whether all old-version App and Pro instances in the cluster are fully stopped and old task leases have expired |
Three common errors
- Treating the shipment confirmation form's "pending review" state as approved shipment. The input is SC-2026-0417 with status "pending review." The comparison object is an "approved" or "completed" state. The observable result is that the status field does not show approval. A pending review does not demonstrate that operating permission is absent, and it does not demonstrate that authorization was granted.
- Treating the return address setting's "previous address retained" as an executed change. The input is RA-2026-0417 retaining the previous address. The comparison object is a post-change new address record. The observable result is that the address field matches the previous address. Retaining an address does not show that a change was authorized or executed.
- Treating the logistics tracking sheet's "carrier has collected" as completed delivery. The input is LT-2026-0417 recording carrier collection. The comparison object is a delivery completion or signature record. The observable result is that the tracking sheet has no signature field. Collection and completed delivery are different facts.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the proposed judgment sentence. Compare the shipment confirmation form's status field against the value "approved." The observable result is that when the status is "pending review," the judgment sentence "has completed shipment confirmation" is not supported. The expectation is that the evidence gap is retained rather than filled with an invented authorization clause.
- Input return address setting RA-2026-0417. Compare the address field against the previous address. The observable result is that when the previous address is retained, the judgment sentence "the return address change may be executed" is not supported. The expectation is that the item is recorded as pending verification, without claiming the change was executed.
- Input logistics tracking sheet LT-2026-0417. Compare the tracking field against a signature record. The observable result is that when only collection is recorded, completed delivery is not supported. The expectation is that collection and delivery are kept distinct, and a retrieval hit is not treated as authorized execution.
These checks test the named primary task: whether the authorization state in the handover materials supports the proposed judgment. They do not test identity certification or report analysis. Where the material does not state a field, that field remains unknown.