What the documents look like
Title and detail compliance handles advertising truthfulness and qualification display. It does not handle parcel delivery, so conversation records produced during order fulfillment and after-sales question handling cluster around three document types: prohibited-word checks, comparison of actual product parameters, and replacement of non-compliant assets. The working documents are the product title table, detail page assets, the advertising prohibited-word list, and quality inspection reports. Material updates occur weekly and at each new listing; this page's behavior does not change with that frequency.
These materials enter a conversation system, and the logs must distinguish sessions for the same product arriving through different entry points. A test call and a formal call for one product can otherwise be counted together, which distorts any later reconciliation. The conversation interface identifies a session by chatId and a single exchange by dataId. When conversation run details are needed, the official contract requires setting detail and inspecting responseData. The presence of a log entry does not mean a compliance audit is complete; reconciliation, retention, and compliance obligations are carried out by a full business plan separately. Retrieval or a form collects and returns content; neither constitutes authorized execution.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
A hypothetical paper exercise sample is used below. The material text is: "Product title table, row 12: product name is 'Household quiet blender', status is 'pending review'; advertising prohibited-word list, item 3: the word 'quiet' requires an attached inspection report number; quality inspection report number Q-2024-018 has a blank conclusion field." A proposed sentence to be judged is: "The quiet performance of this product has been confirmed by a quality inspection report." This proposed sentence lacks the inspection report number and the conclusion, so the existing materials cannot support it. If a handover request is also submitted — "Please publish this title directly" — that request sits in a pending-review state and does not indicate that publication has been authorized.
Several constraints follow. A retrieval hit is not an authorization; a knowledge base query returns content and does not carry approval status. A pending-review title is not publishable; the title table status and the publication condition are separate facts. Sessions for the same product through different entry points must be checked separately, because chatId and dataId sets differ between test and formal calls. Business data that the interface does not return cannot be assumed to be fully retained. When the interface is asked for run details, detail must be set according to the official contract, and responseData must be inspected; otherwise only the choices field is available. Relevance scores returned by retrieval do not act as permission or entity filters, and retrieval does not grant authorization.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists only officially documented settings or implementation checks tied to this page's documents and primary task. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, not official defaults.
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| chatId | One fixed session identifier per product | Compare with sessions for the same product at other entry points to check for mixed counting |
| detail | true | Needed to read responseData; compare with false, where only choices is available |
| dataId | Unique per exchange | Compare with other dataId values under the same chatId to check for duplicates |
| Log field scope | Only fields actually returned by the interface | Compare with business ledger fields; record missing items as gaps |
| Retrieval scope | Target knowledge base with access rights | Compare with a knowledge base without access rights; do not merge across them |
| Test and formal calls | Recorded separately | Compare identity fields and history content between the two |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. Input is a knowledge base query; the comparison object is an approval record; if only retrieval output exists and no approval field is present, the authorization state is unsupported.
- Treating a pending-review title as publishable. Input is the title table status "pending review"; the comparison object is the publication condition; when the two do not match, publication must not be executed.
- Mixing sessions from different entry points. Input is the chatId of the same product at test and formal entry points; the comparison object is each dataId list; if they are not checked separately, the counting basis is wrong.
How to verify the setup
- Input the material text and the proposed sentence from the hypothetical sample above. Compare whether the proposed sentence contains the inspection report number and the conclusion. If both are absent, the sentence is unsupported; it is not judged false.
- Input the handover request "Please publish this title directly". Compare the title table status with the publication condition. If the status is pending review and no approval record exists, the publication action has not been executed.
- Input the chatIds of the same product at two entry points. Compare each dataId and returned field. If the fields can be distinguished and have not been merged, the recording basis is correct; if they cannot be distinguished, record the gap for follow-up.
These checks test the named primary task: judging proposed copy against supplied source wording and its limitations. They do not drift into identity certification or report analysis.