What the documents look like
Multi-warehouse splitting happens at the order routing stage: it decides which warehouse ships an order, which places it in a different operational step from courier handover. The main data sources are WMS, OMS, ERP inventory, and platform inventory interfaces. The documents handled day to day include splitting rules, inventory synchronization tables, transfer orders, and out-of-stock warnings. In order fulfillment and after-sales question answering, these materials serve as the working papers for cross-checking, and multi-turn prompts need to state the document scope, the answering task, and how missing evidence is handled.
A splitting rule carries an effective scope and an effective date. An inventory synchronization table carries a snapshot value and an update time. A transfer order carries a status such as pending review. An out-of-stock warning carries the condition that triggered it. These states differ from one another, and a prompt cannot treat a pending review as already effective or a transfer draft as a completed transfer.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue brings in history. When a session continues, the system takes context from the stored conversation; a new session relies entirely on the messages passed in. The prompt must therefore state which materials are in scope and which are not, and must not let the model supply a business fact that the materials do not contain.
Question optimization handles reference resolution and question expansion. It needs to be checked when the knowledge base is used for continuous dialogue, and short questions do not all qualify. Model context and reply limits determine whether a long document plus a follow-up can be carried in full. Reply format is chosen according to what comes downstream; when json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement must be filled in and the returned structure verified. Thinking budget belongs to the thinking configuration and cannot be moved over to serve as a citation token limit.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material reads, "Splitting rule V3 takes effect on 2025-03-01 and covers the East China and South China regions; the inventory synchronization table shows Warehouse A sellable 120 units and Warehouse B sellable 45 units, with an update time of 2025-03-02 09:00; transfer order DB-20250302-07 has status pending review, transferring 30 units from Warehouse B to Warehouse A." The draft sentence to be judged is, "Warehouse B stock is insufficient; 30 units have been transferred from Warehouse A to make up the shortfall, and the order can ship normally." This draft sentence writes a pending-review transfer as a completed transfer and does not state the authorization boundary.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Memory rounds | Set to 4 rounds | After-sales answering needs the preceding order and warehouse information; compare with 2 rounds and 8 rounds for whether context is sufficient |
| Reply limit | Enabled and set to 800 | Splitting explanations need to be complete; compare with 400 for truncation |
| Temperature | Set to 0.3 | Rule-defined scenarios need stability; compare with 0.8 for answer variation |
| Reply format | Keep default | Ordinary answering needs no fixed structure; compare with json_schema for downstream needs |
| Multimodal recognition | Not enabled for now | The sample has no image, audio, or video input; compare with enabled to see whether extra parsing appears |
| Hide AI output | Off | Intermediate results need to be observed for citation checking; compare with on for visibility |
The values above are hypothetical trial starting points for this page, not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Writing a pending-review transfer order as a completed transfer. The input is transfer order DB-20250302-07 with status pending review; the comparison object is the status field in the source material; the observable result is the draft sentence containing "has been transferred."
- Treating one moment's value in the inventory synchronization table as real-time sellable stock. The input is Warehouse A 120 units and Warehouse B 45 units at 2025-03-02 09:00; the comparison object is the update time against the current moment; the observable result is the draft sentence claiming real-time stock.
- Treating a retrieval result as the basis for authorization. The input is a splitting rule fragment returned by the knowledge base; the comparison object is the authorization boundary statement; the observable result is the draft sentence claiming shipment has been approved.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source material and the draft sentence; compare whether the draft sentence matches the transfer order status field; if "has been transferred" or "made up" appears, the check does not pass.
- Input the inventory synchronization table update time and the draft sentence; compare whether the draft sentence presents the 09:00 value as real-time; if "real-time" or "current" appears, the check does not pass.
- Input an empty result [] to check the downstream design; compare whether the downstream handles it as missing evidence; if the downstream directly outputs a definite shipping conclusion, the check does not pass. The above is a paper check and has not been executed.