What the documents look like
Letter-of-credit document examination and presentation centers on the issuing bank notice, UCP600 clauses, freight forwarder bills of lading, and bank presentation records. The work serves the bank's payment conditions, and the priority is document consistency rather than tax matching. Daily documents include the letter of credit, commercial invoice, bill of lading, insurance policy, and draft. Records update per transaction. These materials set the input boundary for multi-turn dialogue: examination questions routinely cite specific document fields and clauses, and any document number, amount, or date that appeared in an earlier turn must stay consistent with the current session. The model cannot use similarity to fill in clauses or document status that were not provided.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue must separate a new session from a continued session. When chatId is a non-empty string, the system retrieves the session from the database, uses the last entry in the messages array as the user question, and ignores the remaining messages. When chatId is not passed, context is built entirely from the supplied messages. Prompts should state the material scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence. Question optimization, when used for continuous knowledge-base dialogue, checks pronoun resolution and question expansion; it cannot be assumed to apply to every short question. Model context and reply limits need checking against long documents combined with follow-up questions. Reply format follows the downstream consumer; selecting json_schema requires filling in the corresponding format requirements and verifying the returned structure. Retrieval similarity does not carry permission or entity isolation.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source text reads, "The issuing bank notice states the letter-of-credit amount as USD 120,000, the latest shipment date as 20 May 2026, and the presentation period as 21 days after shipment. The freight forwarder bill of lading shows a loading date of 18 May 2026." The draft sentence to be judged is, "This bill of lading already satisfies the letter-of-credit shipment-period requirement, and the presentation period runs from 18 May." This sample is for paper comparison only and does not represent a real business record.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Starting point for this hypothetical exercise | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model that supports the required context length | Compare the model information's maximum context and tool-calling capability |
| Memory turns | Keep a small number of history turns at first | Compare the context brought into a follow-up against the current document numbers for consistency |
| Reply limit | Set according to the length of an examination explanation | Observe whether the reply is truncated or exceeds the needed length |
| Temperature | Low | Compare whether answers to similar examination questions stay stable |
| Reply format | Default; choose json_schema when downstream reads fields | When json_schema is selected, fill in the format requirements and verify the returned structure |
| Multimodal recognition | Decide by model capability | When the model does not support it, the dialog does not show the corresponding option |
The values above are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, not official defaults. Memory turns and reply limit need comparison against the sample follow-up combination.
Three common errors
- Treating all messages as context when chatId is non-empty. The system takes only the last entry as the user question and ignores the rest. Check the input messages array together with the chatId state, and compare which context was actually brought in.
- Treating a similarity score as permission or entity filtering. Retrieval does not perform authorization. Check the returned quoteList against the target dataset identifier, and compare whether records from other datasets are mixed in.
- Asking the model in the prompt to fill in document status that was not provided. In the sample, no presentation date is stated, so the model should not assert that the presentation period is satisfied. Check the prompt against the sample source text, and compare whether the answer contains a field absent from the source.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence, then compare whether the draft sentence goes beyond the shipment period and presentation-period start basis stated in the source. The answer should point out that the basis for the presentation-period start is not fully stated in the source and remains to be verified.
- Input a non-empty chatId with messages containing several history entries, then compare whether the user question actually adopted is the last entry and whether the rest are ignored. Observe whether the returned historyPreview or completeMessages matches the expectation.
- Input an empty reference result [], and check whether the downstream design handles the empty result as such, without claiming that a fabricated-rule retrieval necessarily returns empty. Compare whether the downstream node produces unsupported additions.
This page addresses only letter-of-credit document examination and presentation, order fulfillment and after-sales question answering, and multi-turn prompts. Operational handover must state which materials, operations, and requests sit at which authorization status; retrieval and forms are not authorization to execute. The update frequency of per-transaction records does not by itself establish batch sync, full sync, real-time, or transaction-triggered mechanisms.