What the documents look like
Fresh-food supplier claims trace responsibility for quality on arrival. They do not address natural in-store shrinkage. The working materials for this category are quality anomaly sheets, photographic evidence, deduction notices and claim reconciliation statements. These originate from the quality inspection system, WMS receiving, supplier contracts and financial reconciliation. Data updates per batch and monthly. Errors in this area produce supplier disputes, absorbed costs for spoiled goods or supply interruption.
For conversation logs and audit, the relevant work is confirming the session identity, run details and returned fields for each claim communication, so that an operations handover can state which materials, actions and requests hold which authorization status. A retrieval match or a filled form collects or surfaces values; it does not perform business verification, approval, database writes or external synchronization. Those steps require their own stated downstream implementation.
A hypothetical paper sample is used throughout this page. The quality inspection record states: "On 12 March 2025, batch A-0312, spinach arrival 200 cases, leaf wilting found on sampling, judged quality anomaly." A draft sentence under review reads: "The deduction notice for this batch has been issued, and the supplier has confirmed compensation." The pending request under review reads: "Hand over the claim handling authority for this session to the next shift operator." That request does not state the handover scope or the authorization basis.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Session identity is checked with chatId against the business record, and sessions from different entry points are not counted together. When run details are needed, detail is set according to the official contract and responseData is inspected. Log fields and actual API return fields are compared item by item; business data that was not returned cannot be presumed to have been fully retained. Identity fields in test mode may differ from formal calls, so input, history and returned content are checked separately. Reconciliation, retention and compliance requirements are handled by a complete business plan; the existence of a log does not mean a compliance audit is complete. Retrieval and similarity do not carry permission or entity isolation functions.
The documented chat interface states that when detail is true in non-stream mode, intermediate values including module status and the complete response are saved in responseData. In stream mode those values are distinguished through event. The interface does not return actual Token consumption; if that is needed, detail is set to true and the tokens values in responseData are calculated manually. The model and temperature fields passed in are invalid, because those are determined by orchestration and do not change with API parameters. For authProxy, the team owner must enable it when creating or editing the key, and the proxy identity still needs the target application and session permissions; this applies only to FastGPT >= v4.15.0.
Conversation CRUD uses appId for the application, chatId for one session under an application, and dataId for one dialogue under a session. Clearing application sessions only clears sessions created through API Key, not sessions from online use, share links or other sources. The source parameter set to api retrieves sessions created through the API and does not retrieve page sessions. A relevance score is not a category, entity or permission filter. The same-model retrieval association requirement applies to the retrieval library and cannot be extended to business registration sites or other external systems.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| chatId | claim-A-0312 for this paper trial | Compare character by character with the batch identifier in the business record to confirm the same session |
| detail | true for this paper trial | Check whether responseData is returned, and compare with the response structure when false |
| responseChatItemId | claim-A-0312-r1 for this paper trial | Check uniqueness under the same chatId; a duplicate requires replacement |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | true for this paper trial | Compare whether the customFeedbacks field appears in the returned list |
| source | api for this paper trial | Compare the session list source and confirm it is counted separately from page sessions |
These starting points are choices for this paper exercise, used to set a comparison baseline. They are not official default values.
Three common errors
- Treating a claim record matched by retrieval as an authorized processing basis. The error is that similarity reflects text relevance only and does not constitute permission or entity isolation. Check: input a query containing batch A-0312, compare the matched records with the business authorization scope, and observe whether unauthorized batch records appear.
- Treating the draft sentence "The deduction notice for this batch has been issued, and the supplier has confirmed compensation" as verified fact. The error is that the source text records only the quality anomaly judgment and does not record issuance of the deduction notice or supplier confirmation. Check: compare that sentence item by item with the original quality inspection record, and observe whether both the deduction and the confirmation have corresponding source text.
- Treating the handover request "Hand over the claim handling authority for this session to the next shift operator" as a completed handover. The error is that the request states no authorization scope or basis, and a request is not authorization execution. Check: compare the request text with available authorization records, and observe whether an explicit authorizing subject and scope exist.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the original quality inspection record text and the draft sentence, compare the two statements "the deduction notice has been issued" and "the supplier has confirmed compensation," and observe whether the source text records the corresponding content. The expected result is that neither item is supported, recorded as pending verification.
- Verification two: input the handover request text, compare the authorization scope in the request with available authorization records, and observe whether an authorizing subject, object and valid scope exist. The expected result is that none is stated, recorded as pending verification and not judged as authorized.
- Verification three: input a session query with chatId claim-A-0312, compare the returned responseData with the detail setting, and observe whether the run detail fields appear according to the contract. The expected result is that they are returned according to the setting; if they do not appear, record the actual returned fields without inferring a cause.
These are paper checks only. No test was actually executed.