What the documents look like
Brand after-sales repair turns on warranty responsibility and physical repair sites, which separates it from platform-refund after-sales. The main data sources are the after-sales system, store orders, repair-site feedback and the national three-guarantee catalogue. Daily documents include warranty cards, repair work orders, inspection reports and exchange approvals. Judging warranty scope, coordinating repair parts and approving returns or exchanges are the time-consuming steps. Errors here produce consumer complaints, repair overruns and compensation or exchange obligations. These facts shape how the conversation logs and audit step must keep session identity, run detail and business documents in separate checks.
The conversation interface document states that when chatId is a non-empty string, the system reads the session from the database and uses the last item in the messages array as the user question; when chatId is absent, the context feature is not used and context is built entirely from the passed messages. A passed responseChatItemId becomes the response message ID for that turn and is stored in the database, and it must be unique under the current chatId. Run detail requires detail=true; in non-stream mode the result sits in responseData, and in stream mode it is separated by event. The conversation CRUD document states that source=api returns only sessions created through the API, and clearing an application's sessions clears only those created with an API Key. A log existing and a compliance audit being complete are two different things; reconciliation, retention and compliance requirements belong to a full business solution implemented elsewhere.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
The audit step must not treat a retrieved record as authorization. Retrieval returns stored conversation content; it does not verify warranty scope, approve an exchange or write to a business system. Those actions need their own downstream implementation and their own authorization boundary.
Hypothetical paper exercise. A brand after-sales centre receives a repair on 10 March 2025. The warranty card records a purchase date of 2 November 2024 and a one-year whole-machine warranty. The repair work order records the fault as a cracked screen and the repair site's judgement as accidental damage. The inspection report has not yet been issued. The exchange approval status is pending review. A drafted sentence reads: "The inspection report has confirmed accidental damage, the exchange approval has passed, and an exchange can be arranged."
The exercise compares that drafted sentence against the source materials. The source says the inspection report has not been issued, so the drafted claim about confirmed accidental damage is not supported. The source says the approval status is pending review, and a pending request is not an approval, so the drafted claim that the approval passed and an exchange can be arranged is not supported. The exercise also checks whether the session for this repair can be matched to the work order through chatId, and whether the run detail for that turn actually contains an inspection node and an approval node. If those nodes are absent from the returned detail, the exercise records a gap rather than assuming the business data was retained.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Item | Setting or check documented for this page | Relation to the exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Session identity | When chatId is a non-empty string, the database session is used and the last message becomes the user question | Check whether this repair's session and work order share one chatId |
| Response identity | responseChatItemId must be unique under the current chatId and is stored as the response message ID | Check whether the reply record maps to this work order |
| Run detail | With detail=true, non-stream results sit in responseData and stream results are separated by event | Check whether the node responses include inspection and approval nodes |
| Session source | source=api returns only sessions created through the API | Check whether the log scope covers this repair's entry source |
| Clearing scope | Clearing application sessions clears only those created with an API Key | Check whether a cleanup would touch non-API sessions |
| Feedback fields | userGoodFeedback and userBadFeedback are optional | Check whether feedback attaches to this repair's dataId |
Three common errors
- Reading "the inspection report has confirmed accidental damage" as an established fact. The exercise source states the inspection report has not been issued, so the drafted sentence has no support.
- Reading "exchange approval status is pending review" as approval. Pending review is an incomplete state and does not constitute authorization to execute.
- Using the source=api session list to conclude that every entry point's sessions are retained. The document states this source does not return sessions created on the page, so its scope is limited.
How to verify the setup
- Input the exercise source text and the drafted sentence. Compare "the inspection report has not been issued" with "the inspection report has confirmed accidental damage". When the drafted sentence does not match the source, record it as unsupported.
- Input the exchange approval status field. Compare "pending review" with "passed". When the status has not changed to passed, the output must not state that an exchange can be arranged.
- Input the source=api session list and the page sessions. Compare the two scopes. When the list does not cover the page sessions, record a retention gap and do not conclude that all sessions are retained.