What the documents look like
Complaints and official replies address a platform or a regulator, so the working materials are complaint tickets, regulator inquiry letters, order evidence, and rectification reports. These carry a formal evidence chain and rectification wording. Sources include the 12315 platform, the platform complaint center, customer service chat, and the order system. Updates are irregular and per case. During an operations handover, materials, operations, and requests each sit in a different authorization state. A retrieval hit or a completed form does not authorize execution.
Constraints at the upgrades step
During an upgrade, old and new instances may coexist. View, edit, and reply permissions for the same complaint ticket must be checked against the configuration currently in effect. Current behavior cannot be inferred from an old configuration name.
Hypothetical drill sample: a shop customer service supervisor submits a handover request before the upgrade window. The request text reads: "Transfer edit permission for the rectification reply on ticket TS-2026-0417 to the legal compliance role; the ticket is currently awaiting submission of the rectification report, and the order evidence has been archived." A draft sentence prepared at the same time reads: "The regulator has accepted this ticket, so tracking can be closed." Two source sentences are available for comparison: "Ticket TS-2026-0417 was created on 17 April 2026 and is awaiting submission of the rectification report"; "The order evidence package has been archived, and no regulator reply opinion is recorded." The subject is the ticket, the object is edit permission for the rectification reply, the state is awaiting submission, the scope is limited to this ticket, and the authorization boundary is a transfer of edit permission. Closing tracking is not part of it.
Two upgrade scripts are documented for this release. The historical chunk training task migration (20261008_migrate_chunk_training) is manually triggered and does not block service start. It should be run only after all old-version FastGPT App and Pro instances in the cluster have fully stopped and old task leases have expired. The knowledge base rebuild status migration (20261009_migrate_dataset_rebuild_status) depends on the first migration completing, is also manually triggered, and does not block service start.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below covers settings or implementation checks that the official documents describe as relevant to this page's main task. The hypothetical trial starting values are for this paper comparison only and are not official defaults.
| Item | Hypothetical trial starting value | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| AIPROXYAPIENDPOINT | Hypothetical start http://aiproxy:3000 | Compare with the deployment document example; confirm no /v1 suffix was appended |
| AIPROXYAPITOKEN | Hypothetical start is a non-empty string | Compare with the AI Proxy server configuration; confirm it matches and is not empty |
| PROTOKEN and PROURL | Hypothetical start configures both when the Pro service is enabled | Check PROURL against the commercial service address; check PROTOKEN on both sides and the Pro-side minimum length of 32 characters |
| Upgrade script execution | Hypothetical start is pending execution | Check that old instances have stopped and old task leases have expired |
| Post-upgrade verification | Hypothetical start uses the same complaint ticket sample | Recheck import, retrieval, and application calls with the same sample |
| Agent Sandbox volume name prefix | Hypothetical start carries the old VM_VOLUME_NAME_PREFIX value into AGENT_SANDBOX_OPENSANDBOX_VOLUME_NAME_PREFIX | Compare the configured prefix with the value used before the upgrade |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorized execution. The input is the retrieval result for ticket TS-2026-0417, the comparison object is that ticket's permission configuration, and a retrieval hit does not change who holds edit permission. Retrieval is not authorization.
- Treating the awaiting-submission state as accepted. The input is the draft sentence "The regulator has accepted this ticket," the comparison object is the source sentence "no regulator reply opinion is recorded," and the material lacks a regulator opinion. Missing evidence is not a regulator denial; the "accepted" claim remains unsupported and pending verification.
- Treating a handover request as a completed transfer. The input is the handover request text, the comparison object is the actual permission configuration change record, and a request that is pending review does not constitute a transferred permission. A pending request is not approval.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source sentence "Ticket TS-2026-0417 is awaiting submission of the rectification report." Compare it with the draft sentence "The regulator has accepted this ticket." The observable result is that the material records no regulator reply opinion, so the draft sentence is pending verification.
- Input the handover request text. Compare it with the permission configuration change record. The available material contains only the transfer request; no approval or configuration change record is provided, so whether the permission was transferred remains unknown. Do not supply a pending-review state or a not-executed fact that the material does not state.
- Input the same complaint ticket sample after the upgrade. Compare it with the import, retrieval, and application call results from before the upgrade. The observable result is that the same sample can be reviewed. This does not constitute a zero-downtime commitment.