What the documents look like
Parcel handoff happens at the point where a package leaves the warehouse, and responsibility turns on the carrier's scanning action. This shapes what conversation logs and audit work must connect: electronic waybills, handoff manifests, pickup scan records, and exception item registrations, each tied to a specific conversation. The brief lists warehouse shipping teams, courier outlets, and logistics specialists as the typical parties. In after-sales question handling, the same batch of parcels can generate questions from more than one side, so the log has to distinguish which conversation belongs to which entry point and avoid merging conversations from different sources into one count.
The brief gives an update frequency of per batch and daily. This page's feature does not depend on that frequency, so it is not extended further here. The materials named above are the ones the log is checked against. Whether a given field actually appears in an API response is a separate question from whether the business record exists.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity is keyed on chatId. When chatId is a non-empty string, the system takes the conversation from the database and uses the last entry of the messages array as the user question; the remaining messages are ignored. When chatId is not passed, context is built entirely from the supplied messages. Log verification therefore starts by confirming the target conversation's chatId, then comparing records under that conversation.
When run detail is needed, the official contract sets detail=true in the request. In non-stream mode the result is held in responseData; in stream mode the result is distinguished through event, and the complete node response appears in flowResponses. The log checks the fields the interface actually returns; business data that is not returned cannot be assumed to be fully retained. In test mode the identity fields may differ, so input, history, and returned content need separate checks. Reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements are handled by a complete business solution; the existence of a log and the completion of a compliance audit are two different things.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a warehouse shipping team processes one batch of waybills on 10 March 2026. The source material reads: "Electronic waybill SF-0310-017 corresponds to waybill number 770000000001. The handoff manifest states the item was handed to outlet A pickup clerk Zhang. The pickup scan record shows outlet A scanned it at 18:22 on 10 March." A draft sentence to be assessed reads: "The item was picked up by outlet A on 10 March." The check must confirm whether the draft sentence's subject (the item), object (outlet A), state (scanned), and date range (10 March) all fall within the source material above. Authorization boundary: this sample is for paper verification only and does not represent that any real business action was completed.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check item | Relevant setting or action on this page | Basis for judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Conversation identity | Request passes a non-empty chatId, length under 250 | Under the same chatId the conversation is retrieved, and the last message is used as the question |
| Run detail | Request sets detail=true | Non-stream reads responseData; stream reads event and flowResponses |
| Record reading | Call get conversation list with appId, chatId, offset, pageSize | Returned list contains records whose obj is Human or AI |
| Single detail | Call get single conversation run detail with appId, chatId, dataId | Returns that run's node information; check the actual fields |
| Feedback retention | Call update feedback with appId, chatId, dataId | userGoodFeedback or userBadFeedback is written to the corresponding conversation |
| Source separation | Conversation list request passes source=api | Only API-created conversations are taken; page conversations are not mixed in |
The hypothetical trial starting value for this sample is pageSize set to 20, because the sample material involves only one conversation and 20 covers it; the comparison object is the actual total number of records under that chatId.
Three common errors
- Merging conversations from different entry points into one count. The error appears as combining page conversations with API conversations in a single tally. The check: input two chatIds under the same appId, compare each returned list, and observe whether the records are attributed separately.
- Treating a retrieval result as an authorization judgment. The error appears as concluding that an operation was authorized because a record appeared in the conversation list. The check: input the draft sentence and the source material from the sample, compare subject, object, state, and date, and observe whether the draft sentence is supported by the material on all four points.
- Treating a non-returned field as retained. The error appears as assuming the log is complete when the interface did not return a given business field. The check: input a request with detail=true, compare the fields actually returned in responseData against the expected field list, and observe whether missing items are recorded as gaps.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source material and the draft sentence, compare whether the draft sentence's subject, object, state, and date all fall within the source text, and judge it consistent only when all four are supported by the source; otherwise record it as unsupported.
- Input a conversation list request for the same chatId, compare whether the returned records' obj and dataId correspond to that conversation, and observe whether records from another chatId are mixed in.
- Input a request with detail=true, compare the actual fields in responseData against the fields needed for verification, and observe whether missing fields are explicitly recorded as evidence gaps rather than filled in by assumption.
All of the above is a paper verification design. It was not executed and does not constitute a completed test, deployment, or audit conclusion.