What the documents look like
Creator sales campaigns depend on external creator fulfillment and commission settlement. Operations handover for this category centers on four document types: creator cooperation agreements, commission setting sheets, sample shipment sheets, and live-stream performance reports. These materials update per session and per week.
At handover, each document must be identified by its current stage: draft, pending review, signed, or executed. A version upgrade adds a second layer of checking. Before reading any current behavior into an old configuration name, compare the running version against the target version and the corresponding upgrade notes. A configuration key that existed in an earlier release may have changed meaning, or may no longer be read at all.
The four document types carry different authorization weight. A cooperation agreement states whether the engagement itself is approved. A commission setting sheet states whether the settlement terms are confirmed. A sample shipment sheet records physical dispatch. A performance report records what occurred during the session. None of these four substitutes for another.
Constraints at the upgrades step
Assume a paper exercise sample. A brand business operator hands over one creator session after an upgrade. The agreement text reads: "Creator cooperation agreement No. HZ-2026-0417, signing status is pending review, authorization scope: single live session, valid 2026-05-01 to 2026-05-31." The commission setting sheet reads: "Commission rate 20%, status is submitted, awaiting finance confirmation." The proposed handover sentence reads: "This creator session is effective and commission settlement may proceed."
The judgment points are as follows. The agreement is at pending review, unsigned, so the cooperation is not concluded and the contract is not effective. The commission setting sheet is submitted but awaiting confirmation, so it cannot be treated as approved. The proposed handover sentence writes a pending-review state as effective, which is a status misjudgment. After the upgrade, compare state values within the same field, the same period, and the same subject. Pending review and effective are mutually exclusive values in one field, and that pairing is what constitutes a contradiction.
Retrieval results and form-collected values do not constitute authorization. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each require a separately implemented downstream process. A pending request is not an approval. An offered option is not execution. An unsigned termination is not a completed termination.
Configuration and implementation checks
The settings below relate to this page's documents and primary task. The values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AIPROXYAPIENDPOINT | Hypothetically set to http://aiproxy:3000 | After upgrade, check whether the value matches the AI Proxy root address, with no /v1 appended. |
| AIPROXYAPITOKEN | Hypothetically set to a non-empty value matching the AI Proxy server | Compare whether App and Admin configurations agree. A missing item in either causes startup validation to fail. |
| AGENTSANDBOXPROVIDER | Hypothetically left empty | Check whether the sandbox is enabled. An empty value means no sandbox; once configured, the corresponding required variables must also be set. |
| DEFAULTTEAMBASICPERMISSIONSENABLED | Hypothetically set to false | Compare whether FastGPT and Pro Admin stay consistent. Existing teams are not affected. |
| SYNC_INDEX | Hypothetically set to true | Check whether missing indexes are created at startup. When disabled, indexes must be maintained manually. |
| AGENTSANDBOXSUSPEND_MINUTES | Hypothetically set to 60 | Compare the configured value for how many minutes of inactivity trigger automatic suspension. |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review agreement as effective. The input is the agreement status "pending review"; the compared field is signing status; the observable result is a proposed handover sentence claiming "effective." These two values are mutually exclusive in the same field, which constitutes a contradiction.
- Treating a commission setting sheet marked "submitted, awaiting finance confirmation" as approved. The input is the commission sheet status; the compared field is approval status; the observable result is a proposed settlement execution. Finance confirmation evidence is absent, so the claim is unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval result or a form-submitted value as authorization to execute. The input is a retrieval return or a form submission; the comparison object is the authorization boundary; the observable result is direct settlement execution. Approval and downstream implementation are absent, so the judgment exceeds the authorization boundary.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample agreement text "signing status is pending review" together with the proposed handover sentence "effective." Compare the same field, signing status. The observable result is that pending review and effective are mutually exclusive, so the proposed handover sentence does not hold.
- Input the commission setting sheet text "status is submitted, awaiting finance confirmation" together with the proposed settlement execution request. Compare the approval status field. The observable result is that finance confirmation is absent, so the settlement request is unsupported.
- Input a paper-level empty result [] and check the downstream design. Compare the retrieval output against the authorization judgment. The observable result is that retrieval returns no authorization conclusion, so settlement must not be executed on the basis of a retrieval or form value. The missing evidence is recorded as pending verification.
A relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter. Retrieval is not authorization. Where the evidence needed for a check must sit inside a target retrieval scope or a clearly defined manual input, and that material is absent, record the gap rather than supplying an assumed value.