What the documents look like
Trade returns and claims handle reverse logistics and liability determination after goods have left the country. General export declaration focuses on goods departing; this category focuses on goods coming back, on which party bears responsibility, and on what evidence supports compensation. The working documents are the return agreement, the claim letter, the quality report, and the return customs declaration. Source material arrives from customer email, inspection reports, customs system records, and insurer claim systems. Updates are irregular and occur once per case.
For multi-turn prompts, this means a single return can span several email rounds from cause confirmation, through return declaration, to claim evidence submission. Conversation history may hold return agreement clauses, inspection conclusions, declaration status, and a claim material list at the same time. Prompts must state the material scope, the answering task, and how to behave when evidence is missing, so the model does not write business facts that the material does not contain.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue separates a new session from a continued session. When chatId is passed, the system retrieves the session from the database and uses the last item of the messages array as the user question; the remaining messages are ignored. When chatId is not passed, the context function is not used and context is built entirely from the supplied messages. This difference decides whether the earlier and later parts of a return-cause confirmation can be referenced.
For model and length, check the context and reply settings the model supports. Memory rounds control how many earlier chat rounds the AI may reference; a value that is too small may fail to use earlier information. When the reply cap is set too low, the reply may be truncated early. Reply format follows the downstream consumer; when json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement must be filled in and the returned structure verified. Thinking budget belongs to thinking configuration and is unrelated to reference length.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. Material text for comparison: a return agreement for one shipment states "the buyer must submit a written return application within 14 days of arrival; after that date the goods are deemed accepted"; a quality report states "3 cartons sampled, 2 cartons with outer packaging damage, no damage found to contents"; a customer email states "full compensation is requested because of outer packaging damage." One draft sentence to be judged: "According to the quality report, the contents were damaged, the conditions for full compensation are met, and the return application has been approved."
Comparing that draft sentence with the source text: the quality report records only outer packaging damage and no damage to contents, so the draft sentence's "contents were damaged" does not match the source. The material does not state whether the return application was submitted within 14 days, and it does not state an approval status. The phrase "has been approved" has no corresponding evidence. This sample is a paper exercise for illustrating the comparison method and does not represent any real case.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below covers the sample and lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and primary task. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Starting point for this hypothetical exercise and reason | Comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Choose a model that supports multimodal recognition, to read quality report images | Check the multimodal capability shown in the configuration dialog |
| Memory rounds | Set to 4 rounds, covering the round trips from return application to claim submission | Compare with the rounds in which material appears in the sample |
| Reply cap | Open and set to a medium length, to hold clause quotations | Check whether the reply is truncated |
| Temperature | Set low, since return clause answers need stability | Change to a similar question and observe wording variation |
| Reply format | Keep default; this task needs no fixed structure | Check whether the return is natural text |
| Multimodal recognition | Enable image recognition, to read quality report screenshots | Check whether unsupported types are filtered |
Three common errors
- Writing "contents were damaged" when the quality report says "no damage found to contents." Input is the report text, the comparison field is the damage description, and the observable result is that the draft sentence and the source text hold different values.
- Writing "has been approved" when the material does not state an approval status. Input is the material text, the comparison is whether an approval record exists, and the observable result is that this field is absent from the material.
- Treating a request without chatId as a continued session with context. Input is the request body, the comparison is whether chatId is empty, and the observable result is whether the system uses the historical session.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the sample material text together with the draft sentence, and ask about the condition of the contents. Compare whether the answer matches "no damage found to contents"; an answer stating "contents were damaged" does not meet the condition.
- Ask whether the return application was submitted within 14 days. Compare whether the answer states that the material does not record this date; an answer giving a definite conclusion does not meet the condition.
- Send one request with chatId and one without chatId. Compare whether the two answers reference the same history; mixing them does not meet the condition.
All of the above are paper verification designs and have not been run. Retrieval and similarity do not carry permission or entity isolation; forms collect values, and business verification, approval, and writes require separate downstream implementation.