What the documents look like
Douyin storefront operations center on product cards and the store experience score. For order fulfillment and after-sales question handling, conversation records arrive through the Douyin store workbench, logistics interfaces, and similar entry points. Daily updates and per-order updates mean fulfillment status and after-sales requests change across the life of a single order. The materials that conversation logs and auditing must handle include product qualification pages, experience score detail, shipping violation appeals, and store announcements. Each of these materials has its own responsible party and validity scope. Log retention on its own indicates only that the system recorded interaction content. Business reconciliation, compensation decisions, and compliance auditing require a complete business plan implemented separately.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity is distinguished by chatId, which marks a session under one application, and dataId, which points to a specific conversation inside that session. Check the target conversation against business records using chatId, and do not merge sessions created through different entry points. The value source=api retrieves only sessions created through the API; page sessions fall outside that scope. When the conversation interface's run detail is needed, set detail according to the official contract and inspect the module status and complete results in responseData; with detail=false, intermediate values are not returned. The log and the fields actually returned by the interface are the objects of checking. Business data that was not returned cannot be presumed to be fully retained. Identity fields in test mode may differ, so check inputs, history, and returned content separately.
Hypothetical exercise sample: a Douyin store merchant opens a conversation with a customer service system about an after-sales inquiry for one order. The material text reads: the store announcement states "this store requires return requests to be submitted within seven days of signing"; the experience score detail records the signing date for this order as March 2; the shipping violation appeal material shows the logistics pickup time for this order as March 1. The draft sentence to be judged is: "The after-sales conversation log for this order has been fully retained and can support the return time-limit determination." Judge whether the draft sentence is supported by the materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point or check action | Reason for choice and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| appId | Use the AppId obtained from the application detail path | Official text states AppId is obtained from the application detail path and serves as the request identity |
| chatId | Pass a non-empty string with length under 250 | Official text states a non-empty value retrieves the session from the database, and uniqueness must be ensured independently |
| detail | Set to true | Module status and complete results in responseData are needed, compared with detail=false returning only the final answer |
| source | Pass api when retrieving API sessions | Official text states source=api does not retrieve page sessions, compared with the scope when the parameter is omitted |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | Set to true as needed when retrieving the conversation list | Official text states this parameter determines whether custom feedback is read |
| dataId | Check against the specific conversation ID inside the session | Official text states dataId refers to one conversation under one session |
Three common errors
- Treating log retention as completed auditing. The input is the conversation record, the comparison object is the business reconciliation, compensation determination, and compliance auditing requirement, and the observable result is that the log exists while the business action was not executed. Log retention and compliance auditing are two different facts.
- Treating retrieval or a form as authorized execution. The input is a retrieval result or form submission, the comparison object is the authorization boundary, and the observable result is that the form collected values without downstream approval or a database write. A form collecting values does not produce an authorization effect.
- Using a similarity score to exclude unrelated business. The input is a score or similarity value, the comparison object is the entity or permission filter condition, and the observable result is that a high-scoring record may still belong to unrelated business. A relevance score does not carry permission-filtering responsibility.
How to verify the setup
- Input the material text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample, compare the "fully retained" claim in the draft sentence with the announcement, signing date, and pickup time actually recorded in the materials, and observe whether the materials contain a statement of the conversation log retention scope. When the materials do not state the retention scope, the draft sentence is not supported.
- Input chatId and dataId, compare whether the target conversation belongs to the same session, and observe whether the returned record corresponds to the target order. When sessions from different entry points are merged, the check result does not satisfy the condition.
- Input a request with detail=true, compare whether responseData contains the required module status, and observe whether intermediate values are missing when detail=false. When run detail is needed without detail being set, the check result does not satisfy the condition.