What the documents look like
Franchise filing management works from the commercial franchise information management system, enterprise licences, store lists and contract ledgers. The category handles legal disclosure and the commerce department system; it does not handle specific site engineering, which is where head-office site selection differs. Day-to-day documents include the franchise contract, the operations manual, filing materials and disclosure documents. Update frequency is irregular and annual, and this page does not cover batch synchronization or real-time triggers. Consequences of error include being ordered to file, franchise contract disputes and administrative penalties. These characteristics mean operations handover must separate who holds a document, what operation is requested, and what authorization status actually exists.
For deployment and upgrading, the version notes, environment variables and upgrade scripts form the basis for handover checks. Retrieval similarity does not carry permission or entity isolation duties, and the same-vector-model requirement for jointly associated knowledge bases cannot be extended to say external systems must also share that model. Knowledge bases on different vector models cannot be jointly associated; the identifier is checked first and non-matching items are excluded. In the upgrade scripts, the historical chunk training task migration and the knowledge base rebuild status migration are both manually triggered and do not block service startup; before execution, the old instances must be fully stopped and the old task leases must have expired. A pending review status does not demonstrate that operation permission is absent, and signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts.
A hypothetical paper exercise sample: a franchise head-office filing specialist hands over an account. The material text reads, "Filing material list item 3: franchise contract sample (2026 version), status: archived, valid scope: 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026." The proposed copy sentence reads, "This filing material has been approved by the commerce department and may be disclosed externally." This sentence conflates archived status with filing approval; the source text does not record an approval fact, so the sentence is unsupported.
Constraints at the upgrades step
The deployment version must be checked against the target version and its upgrade notes rather than inferred from old configuration names. For this category, the App and Pro images are updated to the same tag, and the manual upgrade scripts appear under the administrator version upgrade area. The training task migration is a manual trigger that does not block service startup, and the rebuild status migration depends on the training task migration completing. Both require the old FastGPT App and Pro instances to have fully stopped and old task leases to have expired before execution.
AI Proxy is a required dependency from V4.17.0. App and Admin services that reuse App/Service configuration must set AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINT and a non-empty AIPROXY_API_TOKEN; missing either causes startup validation to fail. Old OpenAI environment variables or single-model custom request addresses cannot replace these two settings. The endpoint is a root address and must not have /v1 appended.
After the upgrade, the same filing contract sample is used to re-check import, retrieval and invocation. Completing the steps is not written as a zero-interruption promise. The open-source edition no longer reads config.json from 4.15.0, so an upgrade from an older version must remove that volume mount and move former settings to environment variables.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below centres on this page's sample and lists only documented settings or implementation checks. The hypothetical starting values are for this paper comparison only and are not official defaults.
| Item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Comparison method and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment version | v4.17.2 | Compare item by item against the app and pro image tags in the upgrade notes; avoid inferring current behaviour from old configuration names |
| AIPROXYAPIENDPOINT | Assume http://aiproxy:3000 | Check whether it is a root address without /v1 or a single-model path appended |
| AIPROXYAPITOKEN | Assume a non-empty string | Check consistency with the server configuration and non-emptiness; it does not replace application invocation credentials |
| Manual upgrade scripts | Assume the training task migration runs first | Check that old instances are stopped and leases expired before the rebuild status migration runs |
| Post-upgrade verification | Assume the same filing contract sample | Re-check import, retrieval and invocation; do not write step completion as a zero-interruption promise |
Three common errors
- Treating archived status as filing approval. The input is "status: archived" in the sample text; the comparison object is the phrase "approved by the commerce department"; the observable result is that the source text does not contain that fact, so the statement is unsupported.
- Treating retrieval similarity as permission isolation. The input is a retrieval request across knowledge bases on different vector models; the comparison object is the library identifier and the model identifier; the observable result is that when the identifiers do not match, the item is excluded and no cross-model association is performed.
- Treating a pending review request as an authorized handover. The input is the external disclosure request in the proposed sentence; the comparison object is the valid scope and status fields in the source text; the observable result is that a pending review does not demonstrate that operation permission is absent and does not constitute execution authorization.
How to verify the setup
- Input the two source sentences and the proposed sentence from the sample. Compare whether "archived" and "approved by the commerce department" refer to the same subject, the same period and the same field. The observable result is that the field values are not mutually exclusive and the source text does not record the fact, so the judgement is pending verification.
- Input the hypothetical
AIPROXY_API_ENDPOINTand the official description. Compare whether/v1or a single-model address is appended. The observable result is that only the root address form satisfies the condition; the expected outcome is stated without claiming it was actually tested. - Input an empty result
[]and the downstream design. Compare whether the downstream handles an empty input as such. The observable result is that no rule is invented to claim retrieval always returns[]; only the gap is recorded.