What the documents look like
Member private-domain operations draw on CRM systems, enterprise messaging tools, POS purchase records and mini-program behavior data. Day-to-day materials include member tag tables, outreach plans, coupon rules and privacy authorization records. For order fulfillment and after-sales question answering, the multi-turn prompts step must carry three kinds of information at once: member identity, order status and the after-sales request. Data sources are scattered, so the order information and authorization record for one member may sit in different materials. Prompts must state the material scope and the handling of missing evidence, and must not let the model fill in business facts. Complaints about outreach harassment, uncontrolled coupon cost and member churn are the failure consequences in this category, so reply content needs strict alignment with existing materials.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue depends on four checks: history, question optimization, model length and reply format. For history, check the context that is actually carried in, and distinguish new sessions from continued sessions. For a continued session, chatId is a non-empty string, and the system takes the session from the database and uses the last message as the user question. For question optimization, check reference resolution and question expansion when knowledge-base continuous dialogue is required; short questions do not necessarily qualify. For model and length, check the context the model supports and the reply settings, and test long documents combined with follow-up questions. For reply format, choose the format according to what comes next; when json_schema is selected, fill in the corresponding format requirement and verify the returned structure. A relevance score from retrieval does not carry permission or entity isolation duties, and retrieval itself is not authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise: on 10 March 2026 a brand CRM team assembles a member after-sales ticket. The material text reads: "Member ID M-2041, order number SO-77310, signed for on 8 March 2026, after-sales application status pending review, privacy authorization record shows marketing outreach authorization was withdrawn on 1 February 2026." The sentence to be judged is: "The member's order refund is complete, so coupons can continue to be sent." The scope of the check is limited to the three passages of this ticket material. The authorization boundary is paper-based checking for this after-sales answer only; no outreach or refund action is executed.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Value or practice in this sample | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | Hypothetical starting point of 3 turns | After-sales answers need the signing and the authorization withdrawal turns; compare with 1 turn to see whether authorization status is missed |
| Temperature | Hypothetical starting point set low | After-sales replies require stability; compare with a higher value to see whether inferences beyond the material appear |
| Reply format | Keep default | This sample has no downstream structured read; compare with json_schema to see whether fixed fields are needed |
| Material scope | Limited to the three passages of the ticket | Compare with the full CRM dataset to confirm the prompt introduces no order or authorization field that was not provided |
| Missing-evidence handling | State that pending review is not a completed refund | Compare with the "refund is complete" wording to confirm the reply does not fill in business facts |
| Authorization boundary | Paper checking only, no outreach triggered | Compare with a real execution action to confirm retrieval and forms are not treated as authorization |
Three common errors
- Reading "pending review" as "refund complete." The input is the after-sales application status field in the ticket text. The comparison object is "refund is complete" in the sentence to be judged. The observable result is whether the reply rewrites a pending-review status into a completed status. Pending review does not constitute a completed refund, and that sentence is not supported by the material.
- Treating a withdrawn marketing authorization as still valid. The input is the withdrawal date in the privacy authorization record. The comparison object is "coupons can continue to be sent" in the sentence to be judged. The observable result is whether the reply still recommends outreach after the authorization withdrawal. Authorization withdrawal and permission to send are mutually exclusive values of the same field.
- Using a relevance score in place of a permission judgment. The input is the
scorefield returned by retrieval. The comparison object is the member ID and authorization status in the ticket material. The observable result is whether the reply cites an unauthorized record because of a high score. Relevance is not a permission or entity filter.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three passages of the ticket text together with the sentence to be judged. Compare whether the reply describes the after-sales application status as pending review. The observable result is that the reply does not contain "refund is complete." The condition is met when the reply keeps the pending-review wording and notes that manual confirmation is required.
- Input the privacy authorization withdrawal record together with the request "coupons can continue to be sent." Compare whether the reply recognizes the authorization withdrawal. The observable result is that the reply does not recommend outreach. The condition is met when the reply states the authorization has been withdrawn and stops the sending suggestion.
- Construct the paper input
[]as an empty retrieval result. Compare the downstream reply design. The observable result is whether the reply gives an unsupported order conclusion. The condition is met when the reply states that no relevant material was retrieved and preserves the evidence gap.