What the documents look like
Work on platform product titles and detail-page compliance concerns the truthfulness of promotional claims and the display of qualification materials. It does not concern parcel delivery. The working materials for this category are product title sheets, detail-page assets, advertising prohibited-word lists, and quality inspection reports. Their sources include platform rule centers, advertising-law compliance checklists, brand asset libraries, and inspection-agency reports. Material updates occur weekly and at each new product launch.
The conversation logs and audit step works with records produced by the chat interface. In that interface, chatId identifies a conversation under one application, dataId identifies a dialogue under one conversation, and appId identifies the application. Obtaining run details requires setting the detail parameter according to the official contract; when detail is true, responseData holds module status and complete results. The fields actually returned in a log are limited. Business data that was not returned cannot be assumed to have been retained in full. During an operations handover, the authorization state of each material, action, and request must be checked separately. Retrieval and form collection do not by themselves constitute authorized execution.
Two features of this category shape the handover task. First, compliance judgments depend on matching a specific draft sentence against a specific prohibited-word list entry, so the evidence must be tied to the same field and the same object. Second, qualification materials such as inspection reports carry a stated coverage scope and validity period, so a report that covers one product does not cover another. Both points affect how conversation records are grouped and read during a handover.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Chat interface authentication uses an APIKey. The appId priority order is body.appId, then apiKey-appId, then the appId associated with the apikey under the legacy adaptation. Using authProxy to act on behalf of a team member requires the team owner to enable authProxy when creating or editing that key, and the proxied identity still needs permission for the target application and conversation. This applies to FastGPT versions at or above v4.15.0. These are interface-level identity and permission conditions. They belong to a different system from the approval authority used for product compliance.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. An operations handover record states: "Product title sheet, March 2025 version, containing Title A and Title B; the advertising prohibited-word list marks 'ultimate' as a word pending replacement; quality inspection report number QC-0312 covers the product corresponding to Title A, report date 10 March 2025, valid until 10 September 2025. The draft sentence for Title A reads: 'This product uses ultimate craftsmanship.' The handover request is: please confirm whether Title A can be listed directly."
In this sample, the acting subject is the store operations role, the object is Title A, the state is draft pending determination, and the effective range is that the inspection report covers Title A. The prohibited-word list marks "ultimate" as pending replacement, and the draft sentence uses that word. These are mutually exclusive values on the same field, so they form a clear contradiction. The inspection report's validity period covers the current date, so it is in a valid state. Whether Title A can be listed depends on whether the prohibited-word replacement has been completed. The sample does not record a replacement, so that point is unsupported. The inspection report's coverage does not include Title B, so Title B's compliance state remains to be verified.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check on this page | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| appId | Pass body.appId in the request body, or use apiKey-appId | Identifies the target application; used to check conversation ownership |
| chatId | Non-empty string, length under 250 | Identifies the conversation; check the target dialogue during handover |
| dataId | Dialogue ID under a conversation | Locates a single dialogue record |
| detail | Set to true to return responseData | Run details are obtained under this setting |
| authProxy | Proxied member identity after the team owner enables it | The proxied identity still needs target application and conversation permission |
| source | Set to api when retrieving the conversation list | Retrieves only conversations created through the API |
Hypothetical starting point for this exercise: set detail to true in order to obtain responseData. The reason for this choice is the need to check module status and complete results. The comparison object is the response when detail is false, which returns only choices. This starting point is a paper-check assumption for this page and is not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval or form collection as authorized execution. In the sample, the handover request asks whether Title A can be listed. A form may collect that request, but the sample records no approval. A collected form value does not equal a completed approval; the approval state must be checked separately.
- Treating the existence of a log as a completed compliance audit. The conversation log records conversations and dialogues, but the prohibited-word replacement record does not appear among the log fields in the sample. The presence of a log does not mean the business compliance audit is complete. Reconciliation and retention must be implemented separately by the full business solution.
- Combining conversations with different chatId values. In the sample, Title A and Title B belong to different handover requests. Checking both under one chatId would merge records for different objects. Each target dialogue must be checked under its own chatId.
How to verify the setup
- Input the draft sentence from the sample, "This product uses ultimate craftsmanship," together with the prohibited-word list entry marking "ultimate" as pending replacement. Compare whether both refer to the same field. If the draft sentence contains a word pending replacement, the judgment is a contradiction, and Title A cannot be listed directly.
- Input the sample's inspection report number QC-0312, its coverage of Title A, and its validity until 10 September 2025. Compare whether the report's coverage includes Title A and whether the validity period covers the current date. If it covers Title A and is valid, then Title A's inspection qualification is in a valid state. Title B is outside the coverage, so its state remains to be verified.
- Input the sample's handover request, "please confirm whether Title A can be listed directly," together with the approval record that the sample does not contain. Compare whether the request state and the approval state are the same fact. If the sample has no approval record, the request is pending review. Pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating authority and does not constitute approval; the evidence gap must be recorded.