What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream selling happens before a broadcast. The question is whether a product can be sold and whether it can be shown on camera. The working materials are supplier files, testing-agency reports, platform negative lists, and historical return rates. The daily documents are sample evaluation forms, inspection reports, supplier qualifications, and prohibited-item lists. These materials update weekly and per item.
Order fulfillment and after-sales answering pass the conclusions of those materials to operations staff and customer service. Sharing and embedding means creating an accessible address through the login-free window and handing the question-and-answer entry point to people outside the team. Whether the materials are complete and whether their conclusions are in a valid state determines the boundary of what an embedded answer may say.
Constraints at the shared access step
The login-free window is created under application details, publishing channels. A name is filled in and a link is generated; the name is only for record display. The system generates a localId for each user and pulls conversation records from the cloud. It allows pulling only the most recent 20 records within 30 days, and this depends on the same device and the same browser. Switching devices or clearing browser cache loses those records. The link identifier itself does not represent business authorization. Expiration time, QPM, points cap, and identity verification are set according to the scope of use and checked against the actual version; some parameters are supported only in the commercial edition.
Identity verification takes a POST root address. Initialization of the share link, the start of a conversation, and the end of a conversation each send a request to a specific interface at that address. The response returns success and uid. The uid is a string that does not contain "|", "/", or "\" and does not exceed 255 bytes, otherwise an Invalid UID error is returned. The conversation result reporting interface has no specified return value; totalPoints and token are the fields of interest. The reporting interface is optional.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads, "Sample evaluation form: number YP-001, subject is a certain insulated cup, evaluation status is pending review. Inspection report: report number JZ-2024-001, conclusion is compliant with the commissioned items. Supplier qualifications: business license and production permit are within the validity period. Prohibited-item list: this category is not listed." The draft sentence to be judged reads, "This sample has completed inspection and can go live directly; customer service may promise consumers that there is no quality problem." The handover request to be judged reads, "Please send this link to external customer service; with the link alone they can query all inspection conclusions for this sample."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Relationship to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Name | For record display only | Records that this share entry corresponds to sample answering |
| Expiration time | Set by scope of use and checked against the actual version | Controls the period external customer service can access |
| QPM | Maximum visits per user per minute | Limits access frequency of external customer service |
| Points cap | Maximum billing data produced by this link | Limits where answering consumption is attributed |
| Identity verification | Commercial edition scope; checks the interface return of success and uid | Verifies the identity of external customer service |
| Reference display | View reference chunks, full text, and source original | Determines whether an answer can be traced to materials |
The hypothetical starting value for this exercise is an expiration time of 7 days. The reason is to cover one round of sample re-review. The comparison method is against the status change cycle recorded in the sample evaluation form. This is a hypothetical starting value, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating the link identifier as business authorization. The input is the share link itself. The comparison object is the authorization state in the materials. The observable result is that the link is accessible while the sample evaluation form remains pending review. At that point, permission to go live cannot be established.
- Treating retrieval or a form as an authorization action. The input is an inspection report chunk retrieved in the conversation. The comparison object is the report conclusion against the sample number. The observable result is that the chunk corresponds to YP-001 while the status has not been updated. At that point, completion of inspection cannot be established.
- Treating pending review as missing permission. The input is a supplier qualification record pending review. The comparison object is the validity scope of the qualification. The observable result is that the qualification is within its validity period while the evaluation is pending review. At that point, the record can only be kept as pending verification.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source text and the draft sentence. Compare "has completed inspection", "can go live directly", and "promise no quality problem" in the draft sentence against the pending-review status in the source text. The condition is met only when the source text contains an explicit conclusion on the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The current state is unsupported.
- Input the handover request to be judged. Compare "with the link alone they can query all inspection conclusions" against the uid return condition of identity verification. The condition is met only when identity verification returns success and the uid is compliant. The link itself does not constitute authorization.
- Input an empty result []. Compare whether the downstream design handles an empty reference. The condition is met only when the downstream explicitly handles the empty reference. This does not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Retrieval is recorded as an observation and a failure branch; first-hit and full-recall are not guaranteed.
The knowledge-reference limit uses the documented unit. Same-model retrieval association, empty-reference output, and context limits keep their documented conditions. A relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter; a similarity setting does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Retrieval is not authorization. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization require their stated downstream implementation.