What the documents look like
Regional dealer stock replenishment runs on daily rolling orders, which separates it from seasonal centralized ordering events. The working materials are replenishment requests, inventory turnover sheets, outbound delivery notes and payment plans. These come from dealer ERP systems, brand ordering systems, warehouse stock records and sales receipts. A replenishment request records the category and quantity a dealer asks for. An inventory turnover sheet shows how quickly current stock is being consumed. An outbound delivery note records the actual shipment action on the brand side. A payment plan records the agreed timing of receivables.
Each material carries a different role in order fulfillment and after-sales question handling. Replenishment requests and turnover sheets support a judgment about whether restocking is needed. Outbound delivery notes confirm shipment status. Payment plans support answers about account periods. Update frequency is weekly or monthly, and this page's feature does not depend on batch synchronization or real-time triggers. The practical consequence for a multi-turn assistant is that the model must keep straight which material and which batch the current question points to, because the four document types describe different facts and cannot substitute for one another.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
In a multi-turn exchange the model has to distinguish which material and which batch the current question refers to. The prompt must state the material scope, the answering task and how to behave when evidence is missing, so the model does not write in business facts that the materials do not contain.
Hypothetical drill sample: On 10 March 2025 a regional dealer submits a replenishment request for type A filter elements, quantity 200 units, with the status field reading "pending review by the brand channel manager." On the same date the inventory turnover sheet shows current stock of type A filter elements at 45 units, with an average weekly outbound of 32 units over the past four weeks. A draft sentence reads: "This replenishment request has been approved, with shipment expected on 15 March." To be judged.
In this sample the request status is pending review, no outbound delivery note is provided, and the draft sentence claims approval and gives a shipment date, which exceeds what the materials support. If a multi-turn exchange carries forward a different request number mentioned in an earlier turn, the prompt must state that the current turn's materials govern, so the model does not mix approval states across requests. When checking history records, distinguish what a new session actually carries in from what a continued session carries in. Question optimization can be checked for pronoun resolution in continuous knowledge-base conversations, without assuming it applies to every short question. Model and length settings require checking the model's supported context window and testing long documents combined with follow-up questions. Response format follows the downstream consumer; when json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement is filled in and the returned structure is verified. The display configuration returned by an interactive node contains only type and params, and internal runtime fields are not returned. A relevance score from retrieval does not perform permission or entity isolation, and retrieval itself is not authorization.
Configuration and implementation checks
The settings below relate to the sample above and list only officially documented settings or implementation checks tied to this feature and primary task. The hypothetical trial starting points serve this paper check only and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model that supports tool calling and whose maximum context covers the sample material length | The sample contains two text passages, a replenishment request and an inventory turnover sheet; check whether the model's maximum context covers them |
| Memory turns | Keep a small number of history turns | Customer service and knowledge-base question answering typically keep a small number of history turns; compare whether the carried context includes an unrelated request |
| Temperature | Low | Customer service and rule-clear scenarios are advised to use a low value; compare whether repeated replies to the same input stay stable in pointing to a pending conclusion |
| Response limit | On, set to a moderate length | The sample reply needs to state the evidence gap; compare whether the reply is truncated before the key judgment |
| Response format | Keep default | No downstream fixed-structure read is required; compare whether the default format serves human reading |
| Multimodal recognition | Off | The sample materials are text with no image, audio or video input; check whether model capability matches input type |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review status as approved. In the sample the replenishment request status field reads "pending review by the brand channel manager," while the draft sentence claims "has been approved." Pending review does not show an absence of operating authority, and it does not equal approval. Compare the request status field with the approval wording in the draft sentence and observe whether the two are consistent.
- Treating inventory turnover data as outbound delivery evidence. In the sample the turnover sheet shows an average weekly outbound of 32 units, while the draft sentence gives "shipment expected on 15 March." The turnover sheet records historical consumption speed; the outbound delivery note records the actual shipment action. Compare the material type with the fact type the draft sentence claims, and observe whether the outbound delivery note is missing.
- Treating a retrieval relevance score as a permission filter. When replenishment requests are searched in a knowledge base, the relevance score reflects text similarity only; it does not judge whether the request belongs to the current dealer or has been authorized for viewing. Compare the sourceId returned by retrieval with the target scope the user has access to, and observe whether records outside that scope are brought in.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample text above together with the draft sentence, and compare "has been approved" in the draft sentence with the request status field "pending review by the brand channel manager." If the reply states that the approval status is unsupported and keeps a pending conclusion, the condition is met; if the reply directly confirms approval, it is not met.
- Input the sample text above together with the draft sentence, and compare "shipment expected on 15 March" with the list of provided materials. If the reply states that no outbound delivery note is provided and the shipment date has no basis, the condition is met; if the reply treats turnover sheet data as outbound delivery evidence, it is not met.
- Input a request to look up the type A filter element replenishment request, and compare the sourceId of returned results with the target retrieval scope the user has access to. If the returned results contain only in-scope records, or return an empty list with a note that nothing was matched, the condition is met; if out-of-scope records are returned without marking the permission gap, it is not met. An empty-result handoff can be checked against an explicit paper input of [] for downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule-based retrieval necessarily returns []. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; verify identifiers first and exclude those that do not match.