What the documents look like
Channel diversion investigation deals with regional and price order rather than rebate amounts. Its working material comes from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records and market inspections. The everyday documents are diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices and investigation photographs. Updates arrive weekly and irregularly.
For operations handover at the deployment and upgrade step, the relevant question is narrower: which materials, actions and requests sit at what authorisation state when responsibility passes between operators. A complaint form marked pending verification is not a confirmed finding. A penalty notice still in draft is not an executed penalty. A retrieval result or a completed form field presents information; it does not grant authority, approval or permission to act.
Constraints at the upgrades step
A version upgrade changes data indexing and task states, so handover must check the stage each item has reached. The V4.17.2 release notes describe two manually triggered upgrade scripts viewable and executable under the administrator version upgrade area: 20261008_migrate_chunk_training and 20261009_migrate_dataset_rebuild_status. The first converts legacy chunk training tasks to the new mode and is described as non-blocking for service start, to be run after all old FastGPT App and Pro instances in the cluster have fully stopped and old task leases have expired. The second depends on the first having completed.
Hypothetical drill sample, supplied for comparison only. Three source sentences to check against: "Complaint form number A-07, subject is a distributor, status is pending verification, authorisation scope limited to price comparison within this region." "Anti-counterfeit code record shows the code was first queried on 2026-10-01, query location was another province." "Penalty notice is a draft, not signed, not delivered." The handover request sentence to be judged: "The distributor's diversion is confirmed; execute the penalty and synchronise delisting to the e-commerce platform."
Comparing these: the source status is pending verification and the notice is a draft with no signature; the request sentence states the matter is confirmed and the penalty executable. The material's authorisation scope covers price comparison only; the request sentence involves penalty execution and external synchronisation. The request sentence is not supported by the source text on status or authorisation scope.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below covers documented settings and implementation checks tied to this page's documents and primary task. Starting values are hypothetical points for this drill, with a stated reason and a comparison method; they are not official defaults.
| Item | Hypothetical starting value and reason | Comparison and check |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment version | Target v4.17.2, taken from the upgrade note image tags | Check that the fastgpt-app and fastgpt-pro image tags read v4.17.2 |
| AIPROXYAPIENDPOINT | http://aiproxy:3000, a root address | Check no /v1 suffix and no single-model address is used |
| AIPROXYAPITOKEN | A non-empty administrator token | Check it matches the server configuration and is not empty |
| Upgrade script order | 20261008_migrate_chunk_training first | Check all old App and Pro instances stopped and leases expired before execution |
| Upgrade script dependency | 20261009_migrate_dataset_rebuild_status second | Check the first migration has completed |
| Post-upgrade verification | Re-run the same sample through import and retrieval | Check results match the pre-upgrade sample; no zero-interruption claim is made |
Three common errors
- Treating pending verification as confirmed. The sample source reads "status is pending verification." If the handover record writes "diversion confirmed," the input is the source status against the record status, comparing the same field. Two mutually exclusive values in one field are a contradiction.
- Treating a draft penalty notice as executed. The source reads "draft, not signed, not delivered." If the record writes "penalty executed and delisting synchronised," compare the signature and delivery fields. An unstated field remains unsupported.
- Treating retrieval or a form as authorisation. The sample authorisation scope covers price comparison only. If a penalty or external synchronisation is executed on that basis, compare the authorisation boundary against the requested action. An action outside the boundary exceeds authority.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source sentences and the handover request sentence. Compare subject, object, status and authorisation scope. The condition is met only when every item in the request sentence is covered by the source. This sample request sentence is not covered on status or authorisation scope, so it is judged unsupported.
- Input the upgrade script order and preconditions. Compare the dependency between
20261008and20261009. The second script's execution condition is met only when the first has completed and old instances have stopped. - Input the same sample's import and retrieval results before and after the upgrade. Compare whether they match. The verification condition is met only on a match; where they differ, record the difference without inferring a cause. An empty result can be checked against a clearly labelled paper input
[]to examine downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval must return[].
Material identities, object, stage, date scope and authorisation boundary stay as stated in the sample. Any field not provided remains unknown.