What the documents look like
Livestream violation appeals deal with penalties that have already been issued, so the material set is retrospective: a violation notice, livestream replay footage, product qualification files, and a written appeal statement. The task on this page is order fulfillment and after-sales question answering, and users in that task tend to mix two kinds of requests. One kind asks whether an order tied to the penalty can still ship and how after-sales handling proceeds. The other kind asks for the status of the appeal itself. These two requests draw on different evidence. Order and after-sales records support the first; the violation notice and appeal materials support the second. A multi-turn prompt has to keep the two apart rather than blend them into a single answer.
Material updates are irregular and are triggered by each violation, not by a schedule. A multi-turn conversation therefore cannot assume that the current materials have been synchronized automatically. Before each answer, the operator needs to check which violation event and which document the carried context actually belongs to.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Memory turns control how many earlier rounds the AI may reference. A larger value makes earlier dialogue easier to use but also brings in more content, which can raise consumption and slow the response. A smaller value can drop a violation number or order range that was already confirmed earlier in the conversation. Because appeal materials are long and exist in multiple versions, a low setting risks losing confirmed identifiers, while a high setting risks mixing discussion of different violation events into one context.
Prompts need to state the material scope, the answering task, and how to behave when evidence is missing. Retrieval results provide candidate content only; they do not constitute authorization or business confirmation. A similarity score is not a category, entity, or permission filter, and a high score does not mean unrelated orders have been excluded. Interactive nodes return a display configuration, and values collected by a form still require a downstream implementation before they become a business action.
Hypothetical paper exercise: the following fictional materials are used for this page's paper check and correspond to no real entity.
Material text one: "Violation notice number V-2024-0311, penalty target is the livestream room of Store A, penalty reason is missing product qualifications, penalty effective date is March 11, 2024."
Material text two: "Order O-2024-0315 was created on March 15, 2024, current status is awaiting shipment, the buyer has submitted a refund request, and the refund request is still under review."
Draft sentence to be judged: "The refund request for order O-2024-0315 has been approved, and the order will not ship."
Handoff request to be judged: "Please mark order O-2024-0315 as refunded and synchronize it to the after-sales system."
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below uses the sample above and lists officially documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and task. The values are hypothetical starting points for this paper comparison and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | 4 | The sample covers one violation and one order; 4 turns can hold the notice, the order, the refund status, and a follow-up. Compare with 2 to check whether the violation number is still referenced. |
| Reply limit | Enabled at a medium length | Appeal statements and after-sales replies need complete sentences. Compare with no limit to observe whether long material is truncated. |
| Temperature | Low | Customer service and rule-bound scenarios need stable answers. Compare with a higher value to check whether the same question produces different conclusions across two answers. |
| Reply format | Keep default | No downstream consumer currently requires a fixed structure. If changed to json_schema, the format requirement must be filled in and the returned structure verified. |
| Multimodal recognition | Check against model capability | Replays and screenshots are image or video input, so the model must support the corresponding type. The option is not shown when unsupported. |
| Hide AI output | Off | Debugging needs the intermediate result visible. When enabled, the content can still pass to later nodes through the AI reply. |
Thinking configuration appears only when the selected model supports it, and the thinking budget controls reasoning intensity; it is unrelated to the quoted token ceiling. Stop sequences are not needed for ordinary question answering.
Three common errors
- Treating an under-review status as approved. In the sample the refund request is "still under review," while the draft sentence says "has been approved." Same subject, same field, same period, mutually exclusive values. The correct handling keeps "under review" and does not produce an approved conclusion.
- Treating a handoff request as already executed. The sample request asks for a mark and a synchronization, and the materials contain no execution record or authorization status. An under-review state does not show that operating permission is missing, and the request itself is not an execution result. The check should record the request as pending rather than completed.
- Using similarity in place of entity separation. Retrieved candidates are ordered by similarity, and similarity does not distinguish violation numbers or order numbers. Treating a high-scoring candidate as evidence for the same violation event mixes materials from different periods into the answer. The check should first compare the violation number and order number and exclude those that do not match.
How to verify the setup
- Input material text one and material text two, then compare the refund status in the draft sentence against "still under review" in the source. If the answer keeps the under-review state and points out that the draft sentence disagrees with the source, the condition is met. If the answer directly confirms approval, it is not met.
- Input the handoff request and compare whether the answer describes the request as executed. If the answer records the request as pending and does not claim synchronization, the condition is met. If the answer claims the order was marked or synchronized, it is not met.
- Input two material passages carrying different violation numbers and compare whether the answer separates them by number. If the answer cites each number separately and does not merge the conclusions, the condition is met. If the answer merges the two passages into one event, it is not met. All three are paper checks and have not been run.