What the documents look like
Order fulfilment and after-sales question answering for cross-border product compliance and labelling draws on four document families: product test reports, English-language labels, material safety data sheets, and platform prohibited-item lists. Each family carries a distinct evidential role. A test report supports a product safety conclusion. An English label supports destination-market marking requirements. A material safety data sheet supports transport and composition disclosure. A prohibited-item list supports the platform access boundary. These materials update irregularly, and every new listing can introduce a new revision, so reports and label versions for the same product may coexist across batches.
This step therefore receives two kinds of input. One is product information a user adds progressively across multiple turns. The other is historical messages the system carries in according to the memory turn setting. Whether a reply is supported by evidence depends on the context brought in and the knowledge-base references, not on the number of turns. A retrieval similarity score reflects textual relatedness only and does not perform permission or entity isolation.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
In a multi-turn exchange, the memory turn count decides how much prior context is carried in. A larger value lets earlier turns be referenced and increases consumption; a smaller value may leave earlier information unusable. Customer service and knowledge-base question answering typically keep a small number of history turns. A stop sequence truncates output at a fixed marker and is unnecessary for ordinary question answering. Reply format is adjusted only when a downstream flow needs to read a fixed structure, and selecting json_schema requires filling in the corresponding format requirements.
Hypothetical exercise sample: a cross-border seller's compliance specialist submits a material summary in an order fulfilment and after-sales session. The source text reads: "Product name: portable power bank; test report number: TR-2024-0871; report conclusion: meets UN38.3 transport test requirements; report issue date: 12 March 2024; English label version: V2.1, marked capacity 10000mAh; MSDS version: SDS-2024-03." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "This product has passed all destination-market compliance certifications and can be listed for sale immediately." The draft exceeds the source. The source records only a UN38.3 transport test conclusion; it does not record all destination-market certifications, and it does not record listing authorization. The request remains pending verification and does not constitute approved listing.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model that supports multimodal recognition and tool calling | Compare with the capability notes shown in the dialog to confirm the model covers the input types this task needs |
| Memory turns | Set to 3 turns | Customer service keeps a small history; compare with 1 turn and 6 turns to see whether earlier information is carried into follow-up scenarios |
| Reply limit | Enable and set to a medium length | After-sales answers need full explanation; compare with a shorter setting to see whether replies are truncated early |
| Temperature | Set to a low value | Compliance question answering needs stable answers; compare with a higher value for consistency across repeated replies to the same question |
| Reply format | Keep default | The current downstream flow does not read a fixed structure; compare with json_schema for differences in returned structure |
| Thinking configuration | Select standard thinking | The question involves comparing several materials; compare with no thinking for answer completeness in complex follow-ups |
The values above are hypothetical starting points for this exercise and do not constitute official defaults. The configuration dialog shows available items according to model capability; when a model does not support multimodal recognition, the corresponding option is not shown.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval similarity score as a permission or entity filter. Similarity reflects textual relatedness only and does not exclude unrelated business lines or unauthorized records. Retrieval results need manual checking of source identifiers, and permission decisions are carried by a downstream implementation.
- Treating "has passed all destination-market compliance certifications" in the draft sentence as a fact already recorded in the source. The source records only a UN38.3 transport test conclusion. All destination-market certifications are unsupported content, and the evidence gap must be recorded.
- Treating a form submission or an interactive node selection as completed business authorization. A form collects values, and an interactive node returns a display configuration. Business verification, approval, and database writes require a downstream implementation; the submission action itself does not constitute approval.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the hypothetical source text and the draft sentence, then compare whether the draft exceeds what the source records. If the reply presents "has passed all destination-market compliance certifications" as a confirmed fact, the condition is not met; if the reply states that this conclusion lacks source support and keeps the pending status, the condition is met.
- In the same session, enter the consecutive follow-ups "what is the report number" and "what scope does the report conclusion cover", then compare whether the reply cites the report number and the UN38.3 conclusion from the source. If the reply matches the source and adds no certification information absent from the source, the condition is met.
- Enter a follow-up containing only a product name and no report number, then compare whether the reply states that the report number is missing and cannot be checked. If the reply supplies a number or certification conclusion on its own, the condition is not met; if the reply clearly records the missing field, the condition is met.
All three checks address the primary task of this page: whether replies under multi-turn prompts are supported by the supplied materials. When retrieval returns empty, a paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design; this does not claim that a retrieval for a fictional rule necessarily returns an empty result. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers must be checked first and non-matching ones excluded.