What the documents look like
Letter-of-credit document examination and presentation serves the payment conditions set by the issuing bank, and the core comparison is consistency across documents rather than tax matching. The materials for this work come from the issuing bank notice, UCP600 clauses, forwarder bills of lading, and bank presentation records. At the copy-drafting step, the wording of commodity and marketing text has to stay on the same terms already used in the letter of credit, commercial invoice, bill of lading, insurance policy, and draft. When the product name, quantity, amount, or shipment details in a draft sentence drift away from the underlying documents, a discrepancy can appear at examination. This category of data updates per transaction, so drafting proceeds per transaction and does not carry over wording from an earlier one.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue has to distinguish a new session from a continued session. When a non-empty chatId is passed, the system automatically takes the session from the database and uses the last item of the messages array as the user question, while the remaining messages are ignored. When chatId is not passed, the context is built entirely from the messages provided. The prompt needs to state the material scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence, so the model does not fill in business facts on its own. Reply format follows whatever downstream handling requires, and choosing json_schema requires filling in the corresponding format requirement. Memory rounds control how many earlier chat rounds the AI may reference; a larger value brings in more content, which can increase consumption and affect response speed.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: under a certain letter of credit, the commercial invoice original text has three lines — "Product name: stainless steel vacuum flask", "Quantity: 2000 units", "Port of shipment: Ningbo". One draft sentence to be judged reads "This product has passed international authoritative certification and suits the global high-end market". On checking, the original text contains the subject (this batch of goods), the objects (product name, quantity, port of shipment), and the stated status. The certification and high-end market wording in the draft sentence has no corresponding field in the original text. That sentence is unsupported and needs either supplementary material or rewriting into a description consistent with the invoice; it cannot be adopted directly.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point for this page | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Memory rounds | Keep a small number of history rounds | Drafting is per transaction, so reference to earlier text is limited; compare against the default value before deciding whether to adjust |
| Temperature | On the low side | Copy must match document terms, so stability comes first; compare output variation against a higher value |
| Reply cap | Set according to the needed copy length | Lower it for short copy, raise it for longer explanations; compare against truncation |
| Reply format | Default | Ordinary copy drafting needs no fixed structure; change only when a downstream step must read it |
| Model | Choose a model supporting the needed context length | Check maximum context against document text length; compare with long-document scenarios |
| Thinking configuration | Default | No complex reasoning is involved; compare against a higher thinking strength to see whether it is necessary |
The values above are hypothetical trial starting points for this page, not official defaults. The configuration dialog shows available items according to model capability, and when a model does not support multimodal recognition the corresponding option is not displayed.
Three common errors
- Treating a certification claim in a draft sentence as an established fact. The input is the three-line invoice original text and the draft sentence; the comparison is whether the original text contains a certification field; the observable result is that the original text has no such field, so the claim is judged unsupported.
- Assuming every message participates in context during a continued session. The input is multiple messages sent with a chatId; the comparison is which message the system actually takes as the question; the observable result is that the remaining messages are ignored.
- Choosing json_schema without filling in the format requirement. The input is the format configuration and the returned content; the comparison is whether the returned structure matches the requirement; the observable result is that a structure mismatch means the format requirement still has to be supplied.
How to verify the setup
- Check the sample invoice original text against the draft sentence. The input is the three lines above plus the draft sentence; compare whether a certification field exists; the condition is met when the original text has no corresponding field, which supports the unsupported judgment.
- Check context selection with a continued-session request. The input is multiple messages sent with a chatId; compare which content is actually used as the question; the condition is met when the remaining messages are not adopted, matching the documented behavior.
- Check the returned structure with a json_schema configuration. The input is a configuration with the format requirement filled in; compare the returned content structure; the condition is met when the structure matches the format requirement. All of the above are paper checks and were not actually executed. For empty-result handling, a clearly stated paper input of [] may be used to check the downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule search necessarily returns empty. Retrieval and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation, and libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; the identifier must be checked first and non-matching items excluded.