What the documents look like
An MCN agency manages long-term account compliance for several creators at once. The order fulfilment and after-sales question work draws on four document groups: creator signing contracts, training records, violation handling forms and account schedules. These materials update daily or weekly and arrive from the MCN back office, platform violation notices, creator account data and the contract ledger. The conversation log and audit step answers a narrow question: during an operations handover, which materials, actions and requests sit at which authorization state, and can that state be reconstructed from the conversation record. The presence of a log does not mean a compliance audit is complete. Reconciliation, retention and compliance obligations belong to a full business solution that sits outside this page.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity is checked against the target conversation and the matching business record through chatId. Sessions created through different entry points are not counted together. When intermediate values from the conversation interface are needed, detail is set according to the official contract and responseData is inspected. Field meaning follows what the log and interface actually return; business data that was not returned cannot be treated as fully retained. Identity fields in a test mode may differ from a production call, so input, history and returned content are checked separately. A retrieval library association does not grant authorization, and a relevance score is not a category, entity or permission filter.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. An MCN operations staff member submits a creator schedule verification request. The source material reads: "Creator A participated in the Brand X special live session from 10 March 2025 to 20 March 2025, contract number HT-2025-0310, current status signed." The proposed draft sentence reads: "Creator A's special live session schedule is confirmed and subsequent fulfilment can proceed." The request to be judged reads: "Please confirm the schedule status based on the above material and arrange subsequent fulfilment."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check item | Documented setting or implementation check | Value and reason for this sample |
|---|---|---|
| Conversation identity | Pass chatId to check the target conversation and keep it consistent with the business record | Hypothetical starting point: chatId is this exercise session identifier, bound to the schedule request |
| Run detail | Set detail=true when intermediate values are needed and inspect responseData | Hypothetical starting point: detail=true, used to check node returns |
| Field check | Follow fields actually returned by the interface; unreturned data is not treated as retained | Check whether responseData contains schedule-related fields |
| Feedback marker | Update userGoodFeedback or userBadFeedback through dataId | Hypothetical starting point: dataId corresponds to this conversation record, used to mark the check result |
| Session source | source=api returns sessions created through the API and not page sessions | Hypothetical starting point: source=api, limiting this exercise scope |
| Interactive node | With detail=true, read the interactive configuration from data.interactive | Hypothetical starting point: detail=true, used to obtain the schedule confirmation interaction |
Three common errors
- Counting a chatId together with an unrelated business record. Sessions from different entry points may use different chatId values, and without checking the target conversation the schedule status of another session can be taken as the basis for this request. Check: input two session records with different chatId values, compare the schedule fields they return, and observe whether they point to the same business object.
- Treating a detail=false return as the complete run detail. With detail=false, responseData does not return intermediate values, and judging from it that the schedule node has executed can miss node status. Check: request the same chatId once with detail=false and once with detail=true, compare whether the returned content contains responseData and its node fields.
- Treating a form submission as authorized execution. The inputForm returned by an interactive node only collects values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization need downstream implementation. Check: input an interactive response containing a schedule confirmation form, compare the form fields with the messages content of the following request, and observe whether the form value is treated as a confirmed state.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source material and the proposed draft sentence from the hypothetical sample, compare whether the draft sentence only restates the schedule status already stated in the material, and observe whether the draft sentence introduces a "confirmed" or "can proceed" conclusion that the material does not state. If the draft sentence goes beyond the material, it is judged unsupported.
- Input the request to be judged from the hypothetical sample, compare the request phrase "confirm the schedule status and arrange subsequent fulfilment" with the material field "current status signed", and observe whether the request equates signed status with schedule confirmation. Signing, deal completion and contract effectiveness are three different facts. Where the material does not state schedule confirmation, the item is judged pending verification.
- Input the chatId and dataId from the hypothetical sample, compare the session record returned by the interface with the contract number in the business material, and observe whether both point to the same subject, the same period and the same field. If the session record for that chatId does not contain a schedule field for HT-2025-0310, record it as an evidence gap rather than a conflict or a denial.