What the data for this category looks like
Core data for cosmetic intelligence due diligence comes from the National Medical Products Administration filing system, third-party ingredient testing databases, and compliance regulatory announcements. Primary data sources include structured filing forms, PDF testing reports, and text-form ingredient lists. Updates occur irregularly alongside product filings, new ingredient additions, and regulatory policy changes. Filing system data updates monthly, while third-party ingredient databases sync weekly. Document structure includes fields such as product name, INCI ingredient list, filing number, manufacturing enterprise, efficacy claims, and test item results. Ingredient content uses percentage units, test results use mg/kg units. Filing numbers follow the fixed Guozhuang Beijinzi / Guozhuang Tezi format.
What constraints these characteristics impose on multi-turn dialogue and prompting
The multi-field composite attributes of cosmetic data require multi-turn dialogue to gradually guide users to clarify verification dimensions. For example, first confirm the product filing number before proceeding with ingredient verification. Frequently updated data sources require prompt engineering to specify filtering rules for the latest data, to avoid returning expired information. Long documents combined with multiple fields can easily cause context window overflow. Strictly control the length and quantity of recalled content. In addition, cosmetic efficacy claims must strictly match regulatory requirements. Multi-turn dialogue must gradually verify the compliance of each claim, and cannot directly generate general conclusions.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value Range | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
maxContext | 1800–2200 preceding characters | The core content of a single cosmetic filing document typically ranges from 1200–2000 characters. Retaining context within this range avoids truncating critical compliance information |
recallTopK | 6–8 preceding entries | Cosmetic data has many fields. Recalling too many entries will exceed the context window limit. Recalling too few will fail to cover the three core verification dimensions of ingredients, efficacy claims, and filings |
similarityThreshold | 0.78–0.82 | Differentiate similar ingredient names and efficacy claim expressions, to avoid incorrectly recalling filing data for non-target products |
maxTokenPerChunk | 850–950 | Paragraphs in cosmetic testing reports are relatively long. Chunking ensures a single chunk fully contains a set of test items and their results |
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS | 130 seconds | Single PDF full testing reports for cosmetics have large file sizes. Parsing takes longer than for general documents |
systemPromptTemplate | Execute in the order of filing number → ingredient verification → efficacy claim compliance | Cosmetic due diligence must follow the standard regulatory verification process. A fixed prompt order ensures logical consistency |
The parameter values provided on this page are common starting points for configuration setup. Actual values are affected by material format, data volume, and business rules. Each scenario requires targeted analysis. It is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing values.
Three Common Mistakes
- Calls to the MySQL tool return a 400 status code (no body). Incorrect type mapping for cosmetic ingredient content fields was used. Percentage value fields were mistakenly set to string types, causing parameter verification failures.
- Due diligence reports generated via multi-turn dialogue lack the latest compliance announcement content. No data source update time filtering rules were set for the knowledge base, resulting in recalled filing data that is older than six months.
- Password-free shared due diligence report links are deleted after use. The configuration item for synchronizing logs when a conversation is deleted was not disabled, causing operational traces for compliance verification to be lost.
How to Verify Correct Configuration
- Upload a single cosmetic filing document with a clear filing number, initiate a query that includes the filing number, and check if the returned knowledge base recalled content matches the filing information for the corresponding product.
- Initiate a multi-turn dialogue that includes a specific INCI ingredient name, sequentially ask about compliance and content requirements, and confirm that the system retains prior dialogue context and progresses through verification step-by-step.
- After configuring the MySQL tool call, input an ingredient content query, and check if the returned results include correct numerical fields and their corresponding units.
- Generate a password-free shared link, delete the conversation, and confirm that the background operation log still retains the operational record for that due diligence.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-14.