What the documents look like
Central procurement and distribution conversations draw on ERP purchasing records, WMS movements, store POS data and supplier delivery data. The working documents are collective purchasing contracts, replenishment plans, distribution notes and store requisition forms. These materials update daily or weekly, and the same distribution note moves between headquarters, the distribution centre and the store.
A multi-turn assistant answering order fulfilment and after-sales questions has to see the subject, document number, quantity and status carried in those materials. When a field is absent from the supplied text, the reply states the gap. The reply does not fill in a business fact that the source does not contain. The category difference from price and display auditing is that central procurement and distribution work concerns headquarters purchasing and delivery, and does not inspect store presentation.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
The prompt states the material scope, the answering task and how to handle missing evidence. Conversation history is carried in according to the memory turn setting, and a new session does not inherit earlier context. Continuing a session depends on chatId pulling the session from the database, and only the last element of the messages array is used as the user question while the remaining messages are ignored. Question optimisation handles reference resolution in continuous dialogue, and a short question does not automatically qualify. Model context and the reply cap together limit long documents combined with follow-up questions. Reply format is chosen according to what the downstream step consumes; selecting json_schema requires filling in the corresponding format requirement and checking the returned structure.
Hypothetical drill sample. The supplied material text reads: "Distribution note PS-20240612-03, receiving store East China Region Store A, item 500ml mineral water, quantity 120 cases, status shipped, dispatch date 12 June 2024." A second line reads: "Store requisition form YH-20240610-07, Store A requests 100 cases of 500ml mineral water, approval status approved." The draft sentence to be judged is: "The mineral water delivered to Store A on 12 June has completed receiving." The question is whether that draft sentence agrees with the material.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | A conversational model documented as supporting long context | Compare against the sample material length and confirm the context can hold it |
| Memory turns | Set to 3 turns | Compare against the number of follow-up turns in the sample and observe whether earlier text is carried in |
| Reply cap | Opened and set to a medium length | Compare against the draft sentence length and observe whether truncation occurs |
| Temperature | Set low | Compare against the customer-question scenario and observe answer stability |
| Reply format | Left at default | Compare against how the downstream step consumes the output and confirm no fixed structure is needed |
| Multimodal recognition | Not opened for this sample | The sample has no image, audio or video input; compare against the input types present |
The memory turn figure is a starting value chosen for this trial because the sample contains two follow-up exchanges; it is not an official default. The reply cap is a starting value chosen so the draft sentence fits within the limit; it is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorised action. The input is the sample distribution note and the draft sentence; the comparison is between the retrieved content and the authorisation state; the observable result is whether the reply presents recalled content as a confirmed receiving record.
- Treating a pending approval as an approved one. The input is the approval status field of the store requisition form; the comparison is against the field value; the observable result is whether the reply treats "pending approval" and "approved" as interchangeable.
- Treating dispatch as receiving. The input is the distribution note status "shipped"; the comparison is against the draft sentence "has completed receiving"; the observable result is whether the reply treats the two as the same field value.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the draft sentence. Compare the draft phrase "has completed receiving" against the distribution note status "shipped". The condition is met when the reply identifies the status mismatch and preserves the gap rather than asserting that receiving occurred.
- Input the sample requisition form approval status. Compare the "approved" field value against the description in the draft sentence. The condition is met when the reply judges by the same field value and does not substitute a different status.
- Input an empty result []. Compare whether the downstream design states how it continues when no reference is returned. The condition is met when the reply does not claim that a fabricated rule retrieval necessarily returns []. Whether a real retrieval returns an empty list is not established by this check; only the downstream handling of an empty input is observed.
A relevance score is not a category, entity or permission filter, and retrieval does not grant authorisation. Business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronisation require their stated downstream implementation and are not performed by the prompt or the form.