What the documents look like
Price and display checks take place during day-to-day operations, where the emphasis falls on sustained execution of standards. This differs from franchise onboarding and opening coaching, which are staged deliveries. The working materials come from the supervision system, POS price lists, store cameras, and headquarters promotion calendars. The people involved are the chain operations department, regional supervisors, and store managers.
This page addresses only conversation logs and audit within order fulfillment and after-sales question handling. Store visit photos, price tag lists, display standards, and rectification notices enter a conversation, and the log must locate a specific store and time window by session. It must record manual verification actions separately from business system actions. The update frequency of the source materials does not change the behavior described here, so it is not treated as a scheduling input.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity uses chatId as its thread. Sessions that arrive through different entry points under the same application cannot be counted together. Verification combines chatId to confirm the target conversation, then maps it to the corresponding business record. When run details are needed, set detail according to the official contract and inspect which fields responseData actually returns. Business data that the interface does not return cannot be assumed to be fully retained. Identity fields in test mode and in a formal call may differ, so inputs, history, and returned content are checked separately.
Hypothetical drill sample: a regional supervisor of a chain brand conducts a store visit on 10 March 2026. The source material reads: "The price tag list for Store A shows a beverage priced at 12 yuan, while the headquarters promotion calendar for the same day requires this beverage to sell at 10 yuan." "The store visit photo was taken at 14:00 on 10 March 2026, and the shelf display matches the display standard in effect for that period." "Rectification notice number ZG-2026-0310, status pending store confirmation." A handover request awaiting judgment reads: "Please confirm that Store A has completed rectification and the case can be closed." The material shows only that the rectification notice is pending confirmation. It does not state that the store has replied or that the supervisor has reviewed it. This request cannot serve as evidence that rectification is complete; it remains pending verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below centers on the sample above and lists officially documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and primary task. The values are hypothetical starting points for this drill, used for comparison against the sample values. They are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Purpose | Hypothetical starting point and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| body.appId | Identify the target application | Use the appId of the application the sample belongs to, compared character by character with the value passed in the request body |
| chatId | Locate the target session | Initiate with the sample session ID, and confirm returned records belong to the same chatId |
| detail | Control whether intermediate values are returned | Set to true, and check whether responseData contains node responses |
| stream | Choose the return mode | Set to false, so fields can be checked one by one |
| source | Filter session origin | Set to api, and confirm the list contains only sessions created through the API |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | Read custom feedback | Set to true, and check whether feedback fields are returned with the records |
Three common errors
- Merging sessions from different entry points under one business record. In the sample, if the supervisor visit record and the after-sales answer record have different chatId values, merging them yields a wrong rectification progress. The check inputs two chatId values, compares the ownership of returned records, and observes whether cross-session mixing appears.
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorization decision. A retrieved rectification notice does not mean the store has been authorized to close the case. The check inputs the pending-confirmation status from the sample, compares the draft sentence "the case can be closed," and observes whether any authorization basis exists. If none exists, the gap is recorded.
- Treating test-mode fields as formal-call fields. The check inputs the identity fields from the sample under test mode, compares them item by item with the identity fields returned by a formal call, and observes whether they match. When they do not match, the test conclusion cannot be carried over directly.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and chatId, compare the store, date, and status fields in the returned records, and confirm they match the source text and that no closure conclusion appears that the source text does not contain.
- Input the draft sentence "Please confirm that Store A has completed rectification and the case can be closed," compare it against the rectification notice status in the source text, and confirm the sentence is unsupported, with the output remaining pending verification.
- Input the sample request with detail=true, compare the fields actually present in responseData against the expected fields, and confirm that only returned content is recorded. Fields that are not returned are marked unknown, and retention is not assumed.
This page covers only chain store price and display checks, order fulfillment and after-sales question handling, and conversation logs and audit. At operations handover, which materials, actions, and requests sit at which authorization state must be clear. Retrieval and forms cannot be treated as authorized execution. Reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements are carried out separately by a complete business solution. The existence of a log does not mean a compliance audit is complete.