What the documents look like
Channel diversion review deals with regional and price order rather than rebate amounts. The working materials come from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records, and market inspections. Day-to-day documents include diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices, and investigation photographs, with weekly and irregular update cycles.
The conversation logs and audit step handles session records produced during order fulfilment and after-sales question answering: who asked about which order's fulfilment or after-sales matter at what time, what the system returned, and whether those records can be matched to business documents. This step does not process rebate amounts; it processes the correspondence between sessions and business records. Log retention on its own does not constitute a compliance audit, and reconciliation and retention requirements are implemented separately by the complete business solution.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Session identity is distinguished by chatId. When chatId is not passed, the platform context is not used and the context is built entirely from messages. When a non-empty string is passed, the session is retrieved from the database, the last item of the messages array is used as the user question, and the remaining messages are ignored. chatId must be kept unique and shorter than 250 characters. If responseChatItemId is passed, it must be unique under the current chatId.
When run details are needed, set detail according to the official contract. In stream mode, intermediate values are distinguished through event; in non-stream mode, results are stored in responseData. Whether fields such as module name, module type, running time, tokens, and quoteList appear depends on the actual response; business data that is not returned cannot be assumed to be fully retained.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material reads "Complaint form TS-0417 records that Distributor A submitted a diversion complaint on 12 April, involving anti-counterfeit code segment A; the system session chatId is demo-0417; within that session one AI reply states 'the query record for this anti-counterfeit code has been accepted'; the penalty notice has not been issued." The draft sentence to be judged is "The penalty corresponding to this diversion complaint has been fully executed." Check point: the material contains only complaint acceptance and a query record, and the penalty notice is in an unissued state. The draft sentence exceeds the material's scope and is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check item on this page | Basis and notes |
|---|---|---|
| appId | Hypothetical starting point demo-app | Locates the application; combined with chatId to check session ownership |
| chatId | Hypothetical starting point demo-0417 | Must be shorter than 250 characters and kept unique |
| detail | Hypothetical starting point true | Enabled when run details are needed; non-stream results are in responseData |
| stream | Hypothetical starting point false | Combined with detail to determine how intermediate values are obtained |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | Read as needed | Optional when retrieving the conversation list, used to read custom feedback |
| Run-detail check | Manual comparison of responseData fields | Whether fields appear depends on the actual response; full retention is not assumed |
These values are starting points for this hypothetical drill. The reason for choosing them is to allow item-by-item comparison in a paper sample; they are not official default values.
Three common errors
- Treating chatId as omittable. When chatId is not passed, the platform context is not used and historical sessions are not retrieved automatically. If sessions from the two entry modes are counted together, conversation records for the same complaint form merge with records from the other entry. Check method: input two requests with the same chatId and one request without chatId, compare whether historical conversation content appears in the responses, and observe whether the no-chatId request builds context only from messages.
- Setting detail to false and still expecting responseData. When detail is false, intermediate values are not returned; the premise that non-stream results are stored in responseData is that detail is true. Check method: request once with detail true and once with detail false, compare whether the responseData field exists in each response, and observe that the field is absent when false.
- Treating the existence of session records as completion of a compliance audit. Log retention, reconciliation, and compliance requirements are implemented separately by the complete business solution. Check method: against the hypothetical sample, inspect whether the draft sentence cites a penalty-issuance fact that the material does not contain, and observe whether the sentence exceeds the scope of complaint acceptance and query records.
How to verify the setup
- Session identity check. Input the hypothetical sample chatId demo-0417 and a different chatId, compare whether the returned session content corresponds respectively to that complaint form, and observe whether the two are not merged. The expectation is that they remain independent; this was not actually tested.
- Run-detail check. Input a request with detail true, compare the module name and running time fields appearing in responseData, and observe whether the fields match the official contract description. When fields are missing, record the gap and do not assume retention is complete.
- Draft-sentence scope check. Input the hypothetical sample source material and the draft sentence "The penalty corresponding to this diversion complaint has been fully executed," compare whether the draft sentence cites the fact of penalty notice issuance that the material does not state, and observe whether the sentence should be judged unsupported. The expectation is unsupported; this was not actually tested.