What the documents look like
This page covers multi-turn dialogue configuration for order fulfilment and after-sales questions in brand retail supply chains, store stockrooms and e-commerce warehouses. The working materials are transfer requests, stock snapshots, store shortage lists and transfer logistics notes, drawn from ERP inventory, store POS, e-commerce orders and WMS. The brief gives daily or weekly update frequency; where that cadence does not affect this feature it is left aside.
The document types carry different states, and the prompts must respect those states. A stock snapshot and a shortage list are factual records of what was observed. A transfer request is a pending request awaiting review. A transfer logistics note is a transport voucher. A pending request is not approval, and an offered option is not execution. Prompt wording that treats a pending request as an executed movement, or that reads a snapshot figure as a sufficiency conclusion, overstates what the material supports.
Multi-turn dialogue depends on chatId to carry session context. When a non-empty chatId is passed, the system retrieves the session from the database automatically and uses the last item in the messages array as the user question; the remaining messages are ignored. When chatId is not passed, context is built entirely from the supplied messages. Memory rounds control how many earlier rounds are referenced. A larger value brings in more content and may increase consumption and affect response speed. A lower temperature suits customer service and rule-bound scenarios. Reply format is chosen according to what downstream processing needs; selecting json_schema requires filling in the corresponding format requirements and checking the returned structure. A retrieval similarity score does not serve as a permission or entity filter, and a same-vector-model requirement for a knowledge base does not extend to external systems.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
The following hypothetical paper exercise is used for checking. It is a constructed sample, not a real record and not a test that was run.
Source text for comparison, three sentences:
"Transfer request T-0417, requesting party East Gate store, receiving party South Warehouse, status pending review, requested quantity 30 units, request date 17 April."
"Stock snapshot 17 April shows East Gate store available quantity for this item is 12 units."
"Transfer logistics note L-0418 states that on 18 April, 30 units were dispatched from East Gate store to South Warehouse."
Draft sentence to be judged: "This transfer has completed inbound receipt, and East Gate store stock is sufficient."
The checking subject is East Gate store and South Warehouse, the object is this item, the period is 17 to 18 April, and the authorization boundary is limited to the materials of this single transfer.
Three constraints follow. First, the request status field and the draft sentence describe the same subject, the same period and the same field with mutually exclusive values: pending review against completed inbound receipt. Second, the snapshot figure of 12 units carries no stated threshold, so "sufficient" has no supporting basis in the supplied text. Third, a similarity score in retrieval does not exclude unrelated business records or unauthorized records; retrieval is not authorization. A form collects values, and business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each need their own stated downstream implementation.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Comparison and note |
|---|---|---|
| Memory rounds | 3 rounds | Compare against the rounds needed to reference the three sample sentences; observe whether a follow-up can cite earlier text |
| Temperature | Lower | Compare against the requirement for stable answers in rule-bound scenarios |
| Reply format | Default | Compare against whether downstream processing needs to read a fixed structure |
| Multimodal recognition | Chosen according to model capability | Compare against whether the sample contains images or links |
| Hide AI thinking | According to debugging need | Compare against whether intermediate reasoning needs to be observed |
| Stop sequence | Not set | Compare against whether output must end at a fixed marker |
The values in this table are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, not official defaults. A configuration popup shows only the options the current model supports; when a model does not support multimodal recognition, no such option appears, and the same applies to thinking configuration. If a model does not fully support a thinking option and an error appears after switching, the default option can be restored.
Three common errors
- Treating a transfer request under review as an approved and executed movement. In the sample, T-0417 carries status pending review, while the draft sentence states completed inbound receipt. Same subject, same period, same field, mutually exclusive values: the draft is unsupported.
- Inferring sufficient stock from a snapshot available quantity. The snapshot shows 12 units and gives no threshold or rule, so "sufficient" is an evidence gap rather than a supported conclusion.
- Treating a retrieval similarity score as a permission filter. The score does not exclude unrelated business records or unauthorized records, and retrieval does not constitute authorization.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source sentences and the draft sentence, then compare the request status field with the draft wording. If the draft contains "completed inbound receipt" while the source states pending review, the draft is judged unsupported. This is a paper comparison; no live run is claimed.
- Input the stock snapshot text and the phrase "stock is sufficient", then compare whether any explicit threshold or rule supports it. Where none is present, record the result as an evidence gap.
- Input a paper input of
[]for the empty-reference handoff and check how the downstream design handles an empty reference. Do not assume a fictional rule returns an empty array; the observable result is whatever the downstream design actually does with the empty input, and that remains to be confirmed.
For retrieval checks, record what is observed and what failure branch appears; do not guarantee a first-position hit, full recall or an empty result for unrelated queries. Where different vector models are involved, check the identifiers first and exclude those that do not match, rather than running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall. Optional paths in a general flow diagram are not executed on every request: image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking requires a suitable model enabled by configuration.