What the documents look like
Livestream violation appeals work backward from a penalty that has already been issued. The evidence chain is assembled from the platform violation center, livestream replays, customer service records and the product qualification library. Updates arrive irregularly, triggered by each violation rather than on a fixed cycle. In the order fulfillment and after-sales stage, conversation logs carry two kinds of content at once: exchanges about the violation notice, replay clips, qualification files and appeal statements, and inquiries about order fulfillment status and after-sales handling progress. When both kinds of content share one chatId, the log interleaves appeal evidence discussion with after-sales progress under a single conversation. Reviewers distinguish the objects record by record through dataId instead of treating the session as a single business thread.
The materials themselves are the violation notice, the livestream recording, the product qualifications and the appeal statement. Each carries a different subject, object and validity scope, so a log entry that references one of them does not automatically support a claim about another.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
The first constraint concerns the messages array. When a non-empty chatId is passed, only the last message content is used as the user question and the remaining messages are ignored. Log review therefore relies on records actually written to the database, and the full request body cannot be assumed to be retained.
The second constraint concerns detail. Intermediate values and complete results are returned only when detail is true. In non-stream mode they are stored in responseData; in stream mode they are distinguished through event. For turns where detail was not enabled, module status and the quote list are absent from the response.
The third constraint concerns the boundary between logging and compliance. The existence of a log does not complete a compliance audit. Reconciliation, retention periods and compliance requirements are carried out by the full business plan separately.
Hypothetical drill sample. Source text: a store received a platform violation notice on 10 March 2025. The notice states that the penalized object is the 8 March 2025 20:00 to 21:00 livestream session for product link A, the penalty status is product broadcast ban, and the appeal window runs 48 hours from delivery of the notice. Customer service records show that on 11 March a user asked about the shipping time for order B for that product, and the agent replied that the shipping time follows the order page. Draft sentence awaiting judgment: operations intends to write "the product broadcast ban has been lifted" into the after-sales reply to the user. Review point: the source text states only the ban and the appeal window, and does not state that the ban was lifted. The draft sentence lacks a basis for lifting and remains unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Review item | Value or practice tied to the sample | How it is judged |
|---|---|---|
| appId and chatId | The appeal Q&A session and the after-sales session each use a separate chatId | Pull records by chatId and confirm the two content types do not enter one session |
| detail setting | Set to true when module status and the quote list are needed | Check whether responseData contains the corresponding module elements |
| responseChatItemId | Kept unique under the sample chatId | A repeated value within one chatId counts as non-compliant input |
| Session source | Pull sessions created through the API by source=api | Count separately from page sessions, without merging the totals |
| Feedback field | Read loadCustomFeedbacks when needed | When it is not enabled, the field is absent from the record |
| Retrieval quotes | Recorded through quoteList and score | The relevance field does not perform permission or entity filtering |
Three common errors
- Merging appeal discussion and after-sales progress under one chatId into a single count. The check input is the record list under the sample chatId. Compare the obj and value object of each dataId and observe whether the two content types are counted under one business measure.
- Inferring from the request body that the log was fully retained. The check input is a call made without detail enabled. Compare whether responseData appears in the response and observe whether module status and the quote list are missing.
- Treating the draft sentence as an already verified fact. The check input is the sentence "the product broadcast ban has been lifted". Compare it with the source text, which states only the penalty status and the appeal window, and observe whether the sentence is marked unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample chatId and the record list. Compare whether the appeal session and the after-sales session correspond to separate chatIds, and observe whether records are isolated by session.
- Input a call with detail set to true. Compare the module elements and quoteList inside responseData, and observe whether module status and quotes appear according to the setting.
- Input the draft sentence "the product broadcast ban has been lifted". Compare it with the penalty status and appeal window wording in the source text, and observe whether the sentence is marked unsupported with the evidence gap preserved.
A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Where the source text does not state that a ban was lifted, the gap stays open.