What the documents look like
A fresh-food concession counter in a hypermarket is frequently staffed by a supplier who operates on site and shares sales revenue with the store. Order fulfilment and after-sales question handling therefore involve the store's fresh-food department, the concession supplier and the store manager at the same time. Routine materials include the concession contract, daily sales reports, shrinkage sheets and food inbound inspection records. Data sources cover the POS system, supplier delivery notes, food-safety ledgers and store stocktakes. Reconciling weighed sales, allocating shrinkage and checking inbound certificates are the most time-consuming steps, and mistakes can lead to food-safety penalties, gross-margin disputes and customer claims.
For conversation logs and audit, these materials define what a session and a single exchange must be tied to. A conversation log that exists is not the same as a completed compliance audit. Reconciliation, retention and compliance obligations are handled by the full business process outside this interface.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
One chatId corresponds to one session, and one dataId corresponds to one exchange inside it. When checking fulfilment and after-sales records, locate the target session and the target exchange through chatId together with dataId, and do not merge sessions that came in through different entry points.
To obtain run details, set detail according to the official contract. In non-stream mode the intermediate values are held in responseData; in stream mode they are distinguished through event. Only the fields the interface actually returns can be relied on. Business data that is not returned cannot be assumed to have been retained in full. Identity fields in test mode and in a live call may differ, so inputs, history and returned content need to be checked separately.
Hypothetical drill sample. A store fresh-food department and an on-site supplier disagree over revenue sharing for one batch of leafy vegetables, and an after-sales session must be checked. The source material provided for checking reads: "The concession contract states that leafy vegetables are shared by the amount on the daily sales report, and shrinkage is listed separately." "The daily sales report dated 12 March 2025 records leafy vegetable sales of CNY 4,200 for this counter." "The shrinkage sheet for the same day records 35 kg of leafy vegetable shrinkage and does not record a shrinkage amount." One draft sentence awaiting judgement reads: "The supplier has confirmed the shrinkage amount for 12 March and agrees to share revenue on the amount after deducting shrinkage." The material records only the shrinkage weight, not a shrinkage amount, and records no supplier confirmation, so the draft sentence lacks support.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists, around the sample above, official settings or implementation checks that relate to this feature and to order fulfilment and after-sales question handling.
| Configuration item | Value or state | Check note |
|---|---|---|
| appId | Application identifier in the hypothetical drill sample | Locates the target application and works with chatId to identify the session |
| chatId | Session identifier in the hypothetical drill sample | Length under 250; uniqueness must be ensured by the caller |
| dataId | Exchange identifier in the hypothetical drill sample | Locates a specific exchange inside the session |
| detail | Set to true as the starting value of this hypothetical trial | true is chosen to obtain responseData intermediate values, compared with the choices-only result when false |
| source | Set to api as the starting value of this hypothetical trial | Retrieves sessions created through the API, distinguished from page sessions |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | Set to true as the starting value of this hypothetical trial | Reads custom feedback, compared with the customFeedbacks returned when it is not read |
Three common errors
- Treating the shrinkage weight on the shrinkage sheet as a shrinkage amount. The source material says only "35 kg of shrinkage, no shrinkage amount recorded", while the draft sentence claims a confirmed shrinkage amount. The input is the shrinkage sheet text, the comparison is whether a shrinkage amount field appears, and the observable result is that the field does not appear, so the draft sentence is judged unsupported.
- Treating a handover request still under review as already authorised. If the material shows only that a request is pending review while the draft sentence says the supplier has confirmed, the input is the request status text, the comparison is "confirmed" against "pending review", and the observable result is that the two differ, so the item is judged to need further verification.
- Treating a retrieval hit as a basis for permission or entity separation. A similarity score expresses degree of relevance only; it does not show that the record belongs to the current subject or has been authorised. The input is a quoteList carrying score, the comparison is the datasetId the record belongs to against the target scope, and the observable result is that a scope mismatch requires exclusion, with no cross-scope association performed.
How to verify the setup
- Take the source material and the draft sentence from the hypothetical drill sample. The input is the three source sentences from the shrinkage sheet plus the draft sentence, the comparison is whether a shrinkage amount field appears in the source text, and the observable result is that the field does not appear, so the draft sentence is judged unsupported.
- Take the session request from the hypothetical drill sample. The input is appId, chatId, dataId and detail=true, the comparison is whether responseData contains the run details of the target exchange, and the observable result is that moduleName, moduleType and runningTime for that exchange are returned; if they are not returned, record the gap.
- Take the authorisation state from the hypothetical drill sample. The input is the handover request text, the comparison is the two state values "pending review" and "confirmed", and the observable result is that the two are mutually exclusive values, so a request in pending review is not judged authorised.
This page has checked public technical facts for identifying relevant content in the documents. It does not require copying them as a fixed five-row table, and the body is written independently.