What the documents look like
For copy drafting in B2B marketplaces, this page examines FastGPT multi-turn prompts. Distinguish a buyer’s customization request, supplied product statements and evidence still needed for copy. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
A new B2B writing exercise uses quotation text recording a buyer’s requested customization, without a finished-product specification. Define the prompt’s distinction between a request and an established capability. Inspect the originals and supplied history for the source of any capability claim in the draft. A buyer’s expectation alone cannot verify a supplier function. Retain the evidence gap instead of promoting a proposal to fact through repeated follow-up questions.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Conversation or implementation check | B2B writing condition | Acceptance object |
|---|---|---|
| Request and fact | Buyer customization is not proof of an existing feature | Product support for capability wording |
| Subject handoff | Separate current supplier from historical subjects | Full original question, history and optimized question |
| Unknown identifier | Keep absent identity unresolved | No invented subject from reference resolution |
| Reading checklist | Review source, request and gaps separately | Not new software fields |
| Structured handoff | Choose a format for the downstream need | Inspect parsing separately from field sources |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Prompt and task | Define sources, the task and evidence-gap handling. |
Conversation history | Inspect the history actually submitted. |
Question optimization | Review reference resolution and question expansion. |
Model and length | Inspect context and reply length separately. |
Reply format | json_schema needs its format and parsing validation. |
Three common errors
- If requested customization becomes an established supplier function, compare quotation requirements and capability wording with product evidence. Expectations establish neither technical performance nor delivery capability.
- If this company or item becomes a historical supplier, retain original question, actual history and optimized wording. Trace invented identity before reusing any earlier draft.
- If added specifications fail to reach this turn and structured copy retains earlier values, inspect actual input and sources for each value. Parsing does not establish refreshed evidence; restore delivery and retest.
How to verify the setup
A proposed reading checklist can separate explicit source statements, buyer requirements and documents still needed; these are review categories, not new software fields. Choose a response format for the actual downstream requirement. Where json_schema is used, inspect configuration and parsing, then trace each value. Complete structure cannot fill an absent product condition. After adding a source, also record what actually enters the current turn rather than assuming it is included.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Business Certification Documents, Inquiry and Quotation Sheet, Electronic Contract and Platform Settlement Statement |
| Candidate sources | B2B Platform, National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, Payment Transaction Records and Logistics Tracking |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |