What the documents look like
Brand dealer ordering events serve offline dealer reservations and do not directly manage platform storefronts. The working materials are the ordering handbook, the ordering contract, the sample list, and the credit approval record. Order fulfilment and after-sales answers turn on contract quantity, delivery date, sample status, and credit status, so a conversation log is useful only when each entry can be matched back to those materials.
Conversation identity is carried by chatId, which links a target session to a business record. Sessions arriving through different entry points are checked separately and are not combined into one count. When run detail is required, the documented contract sets detail and inspects node output inside responseData. The fields actually returned by the log and the interface are the objects of comparison; business data that was not returned cannot be treated as fully retained. Reconciliation, retention, and compliance duties belong to a complete business implementation, and the presence of a log does not mean a compliance audit is finished. Identity fields in a test mode and in a live call may differ, so input, history, and returned content are checked separately for each.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material reads "East China ordering event, spring 2025 session, dealer number HZ-017, ordering contract number DH-2025-0312, contract quantity 1,200 units, signing status pending review; credit approval form number SX-2025-0088, status submitted, no approved credit line recorded." The draft sentence to be judged reads "HZ-017's 1,200-unit order has received credit approval and can be scheduled for shipment."
Checking locks the session by chatId, calls the conversation interface with detail=true, and looks inside responseData for elements with moduleType=chatNode and pluginOutput. Within the retrieved quoteList, score and similarity are relevance values; they do not act as entity or permission filters, and a retrieval result does not constitute authorization. The contract signing status is pending review and the credit approval form is submitted; neither constitutes an approval or a shipment permit. The draft sentence turns pending review and submitted into received approval, which is an unsupported conclusion. The material does not record an approved credit line or a shipment authorization, and that evidence gap remains open.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| chatId | One-to-one with this ordering session | Documented as identifying a session under an app; records under the same chatId are compared |
| detail | true | Documented as returning module status and the complete result, used to obtain responseData |
| stream | false | Keeps the returned structure directly inspectable in choices and responseData |
| responseChatItemId | A unique value within this session | Documented requirement that it be unique under the same chatId, used to locate a single response |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | true | Documented as reading custom feedback, used to check feedback fields |
| pageSize | 10 | Hypothetical starting value for this drill, compared with the returned list length to decide whether more records are needed |
These values are hypothetical starting points for this drill and are not official defaults. The model and temperature passed to the interface are determined by the orchestration and do not change with API parameters. An interactive node returns an interactive object containing only type and params; internal runtime fields are not returned.
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review signing status or a submitted credit approval form as an approval. The input is the source material and the draft sentence; the comparison is between the contract signing status and the credit approval form status fields; the observable result is whether wording about approval or a shipment permit appears.
- Treating a retrieval relevance value as a permission or entity filter. The input is score and similarity in the quoteList; the comparison is between the returned records and the target dealer number; the observable result is whether an unrelated record is treated as an authorized record.
- Treating the existence of a log as a completed compliance audit. The input is the session record and the reconciliation materials; the comparison is between the log fields and the fields reconciliation requires; the observable result is whether a missing field is treated as retained.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source material and the draft sentence; compare the contract signing status "pending review" and the credit approval form status "submitted" against the draft sentence's "has received credit approval." A status mismatch is recorded as unsupported, and the approved credit line gap is kept open.
- Input the session records under the same chatId and the quoteList; compare the score values against the dealer number field and observe whether a relevance value is used to exclude or admit a record. Relevance does not perform that function, and the actual observation is recorded.
- Input the session records and the list of fields reconciliation requires; compare the fields actually returned in the log against that list and observe whether a missing field is marked as pending verification. The presence of a log does not mean a compliance audit is finished, and missing parts remain gaps.