What the documents look like
Commission settlement happens after a sale closes. The objects being reconciled are valid promotion orders, refund commission deduction details, settlement statements, and invoices. The source systems are the selected alliance backend, order after-sales data, the finance system, and creator contracts, with weekly and monthly update cycles. For order fulfilment and after-sales question answering, a multi-turn conversation has to keep three material types apart. A commission setting record states the commission basis for one creator, one product, and one period. A refund commission deduction detail states the commission amount recovered against one refunded order. A settlement statement states the amount payable for one period. These three materials share a subject, an object, and a period, and only when those align can a reply rest on them.
The multi-turn history carries earlier turns into the current request. The prompt has to state the material scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence, so the model does not write business facts that the materials do not contain. Memory turns control how far back the context reaches; a larger value references earlier turns and raises consumption and response time. Question optimisation applies to reference resolution and query expansion in continuous knowledge-base conversations, and short questions do not automatically qualify. Reply format follows downstream consumption; when json_schema is selected, the format requirement has to be filled in and the returned structure checked. A relevance score expresses similarity, and it is not a permission filter; retrieval is not authorisation.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
A hypothetical paper exercise sample is used below. The commission setting record text is: "In May 2024, creator A promoted product M on the selected alliance, commission rate 15%, settlement cycle monthly." The refund commission deduction detail text is: "On 20 May 2024, order O was refunded, commission recovered 45 yuan." The draft reply sentence under review is: "Creator A has confirmed that all commission for May has been received." This draft sentence asserts a settlement receipt fact. The sample materials do not state any receipt status, so the sentence is not supported.
Around this sample, the multi-turn step has to fix several things. The prompt scope names the three material types and the period. The answering task is to reconcile the commission setting record, the refund deduction detail, and the settlement statement for the same creator, product, and period. Missing evidence stays missing: where the sample does not state receipt, the reply records the gap rather than filling it. History carries earlier turns, so a later turn that asks about "the same order" has to be checked against what the earlier turn actually established, not against an assumed entity. Reply format is chosen by the downstream step; when a fixed structure is needed, json_schema is selected and the returned structure is verified. Relevance scores from retrieval describe similarity only and do not exclude other creators or unauthorised records. The interactive node, when present, returns a display configuration with type and params; entry node identifiers, memory edges, node outputs, and node response identifiers are not returned. Continuing the workflow requires a further request with the same chatId.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation checks that bear on this page's function and primary task, around the same sample. The starting values are hypothetical choices for this paper exercise, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model that supports tool calling | Compare with a model that does not support tool calling |
| Memory turns | Keep a small number of history turns | Compare with a larger number for consumption and response time |
| Reply cap | Open and set a medium length | Compare with too-low truncation and too-high consumption |
| Temperature | Low | Compare with a higher, more divergent value for stability |
| Reply format | Keep default | Compare with a json_schema fixed-structure case for downstream needs |
| Multimodal recognition | Enable according to model capability | Compare with a model that does not support it and shows no option |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorisation. In the sample, retrieving the commission setting record shows the material exists and does not show that creator A may view or modify settlement data. The check inputs the retrieval result and the authorisation record, compares subject and scope, and observes whether an authorisation field appears.
- Treating a pending review as effective. When the refund commission deduction detail in the sample is in pending review status, that does not constitute an executed deduction. The check inputs the detail's status field, compares the status value against an "executed" description, and observes whether the status remains pending review.
- Treating a similarity score as an entity filter. A high relevance score in the sample does not mean the record belongs to creator A or to that period. The check inputs the score and the record's subject field, compares the subject identifier, and observes whether records of other creators are mixed in.
How to verify the setup
- Input the commission setting record text and the draft reply sentence from the sample, and compare whether the draft sentence "all commission for May has been received" matches any receipt status stated in the source text. The source text does not state receipt, so the draft sentence is not supported; observe whether the reply keeps that gap.
- Input the refund commission deduction detail text and a handover request "please complete the deduction according to this detail", and compare the detail's status field with the requested action. When the status is pending review, the request is not execution; observe whether it is recorded only as pending verification.
- Input an empty reference list
[]and the downstream design, and compare whether the downstream handles the empty result separately. Observe whether the empty result is treated as no record, without asserting that a given rule's retrieval necessarily returns empty.
The above is a paper check and was not executed. Retrieval libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together; only identifiers are checked and non-matching items are excluded.