What the documents look like
For copy drafting in General export declarations, this page examines FastGPT multi-turn prompts. Inspect preservation of source identity and current subject for brand and model wording during follow-ups. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Consider a proposed ordinary-text invoice with a completed product-brand field but no brand history, market-position or usage-authorization evidence. Define the prompt’s writing scope by what the current source supports, rather than expanding a field into a company story. Compare the same request in a fresh conversation and with history, inspecting whether another brand’s earlier discussion enters the draft. Each background statement needs its corresponding original; the invoice field alone does not supply that additional support.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Conversation or implementation check | Source boundary | Observation |
|---|---|---|
| Writing scope | Invoice brand field and product records only | No invented brand history or market position |
| History input | Compare a fresh and continuing request | Intrusion from another brand discussion |
| Model difference | Retain declaration X and invoice Y separately | An earlier answer adopted by default |
| Question optimization | Keep the product and both source identities | The model discrepancy remains unresolved |
| Supplementary source | Benefits require a product description | Inspect parsing separately from claim support |
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 a brand field becomes history, status or authorization, compare the invoice with added statements. Another brand’s history cannot support this item; retain absent evidence as a gap.
- If optimization loses declaration model X or invoice model Y, retain both questions and source identities. Restore the difference before reviewing copy rather than treating an earlier selection as fact.
- If a request for more attractive wording adds functions, outcomes or advantages, trace product originals. Polishing cannot supply absent benefits evidence; retest adoption after adding the source.
How to verify the setup
The invoice contains no core-benefit description. A request to make the copy more persuasive cannot supply a new function, result or superiority claim. First inspect whether the existing draft exceeds the brand and model evidence, then identify the product description still needed. After receiving it, record whether it actually enters the current input before repeating the writing task. If the downstream consumer needs fixed fields, parsing success remains separate from evidence supporting a benefit.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Export Declaration Form, Commercial Invoice, Packing List and Contract |
| Candidate sources | China International Trade Single Window, Customs Code Database, Freight Forwarder Bill of Lading and Enterprise ERP |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |