What the documents look like
Brand after-sales repair service is organised around warranty responsibility and offline repair sites. The working materials are warranty cards, repair work orders, inspection reports and replacement approvals. After-sales systems, store orders and repair-site feedback supply the data, and the national three-guarantee catalogue provides the basis for judgement. Copy drafting has to state the warranty scope, the repair process, spare-part waiting and the conditions for return or replacement, and these statements are constrained by work-order status and inspection conclusions. Material updates occur per order and daily; that rhythm affects how progress is described in copy, and it does not touch the settings discussed on this page.
For multi-turn prompts, the constraint comes from the materials themselves. A warranty card states the validity period and the responsible party. A repair work order states the fault symptom and the handling stage. An inspection report states a conclusion. A replacement approval states whether it has passed. Drafted copy may cite only what these materials already state. Anything the materials do not state remains pending verification.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Prompts need to state the material scope, the answering task and how to behave when evidence is missing, so the model does not write in business facts on its own. History settings need checking against the context actually carried into a turn, distinguishing a new session from a continued one. Question optimisation, where a knowledge base is used in continuous conversation, requires checking reference resolution and question expansion. Model and length settings require checking the model's supported context and reply configuration. Reply format follows what the downstream step consumes; when json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement must be filled in and the returned structure verified.
Hypothetical paper exercise. Material text one: "This warranty card is valid for twelve months from the date of purchase; the repair site uses the work-order registration date as the reference." Material text two: "Work order number WX-2024-0317, fault symptom is screen flicker, inspection conclusion is loose ribbon cable contact, handling stage is awaiting spare part." Material text three: "Replacement approval number HH-2024-0088, approval status is pending review." Draft sentence to be judged: "The screen flicker on this product falls within the warranty scope, the repair can be completed once the spare part arrives, and the replacement request has been approved." The comparison object is the three source sentences and this draft sentence. The comparison fields are validity period, fault symptom, inspection conclusion, handling stage and approval status.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Assumed starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | A model shown in the dialog as supporting the required context length | Compare the model's maximum context against the combined length of the sample materials and the draft sentence; change the model if it is insufficient |
| Memory turns | Assumed starting point of retaining a small number of history turns | Compare the context carried into a continued session against the sample source text; lower the setting if more is carried in |
| Reply limit | Assumed starting point of a length that can hold the full draft sentence | Compare whether the returned content is truncated; raise the setting if it is |
| Temperature | Assumed starting point of a lower value | Compare whether repeated generations from the same materials produce a stable draft sentence; lower the value if output diverges |
| Reply format | Assumed starting point of the default | Change to json_schema and fill in the format requirement when a downstream node needs to read a fixed structure |
| Thinking configuration | Assumed starting point of the default | Compare answer completeness under complex follow-up questions, and adjust according to the levels shown in the dialog |
These values are assumed starting points for this exercise. They are not official defaults. They are to be settled by comparing against the actual length of the sample materials and the returned results.
Three common errors
- Writing a conclusion the materials do not state into the draft sentence. In the sample the replacement approval status is pending review, while the draft sentence says the request has been approved. This treats a pending review as a completed approval. The check takes the approval status field as input, compares the source value against the wording of the draft sentence, and records a mismatch as an error.
- Writing a handling stage as a completed result. In the sample the handling stage is awaiting spare part, while the draft sentence says the repair can be completed once the spare part arrives. This treats a pending stage as a settled outcome. The check takes the handling stage field as input, compares the source value against the wording of the draft sentence, and records definite completion wording as an error.
- Extending an inspection conclusion into a warranty-scope judgement. The sample inspection conclusion is loose ribbon cable contact and does not state whether this falls within the warranty scope, while the draft sentence states directly that it does. The check takes the inspection conclusion and the warranty card validity period as input, compares whether the draft sentence introduces a responsibility judgement the source text does not state, and records such an introduction as an error.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the three source sentences and the draft sentence above, then compare the five statements in the draft sentence — validity period, fault symptom, inspection conclusion, handling stage and approval status — against the corresponding source fields. The condition is met when all five match the source and no new conclusion is added. It is not met when any item mismatches or a new conclusion appears.
- In a continued session, enter a follow-up question under the same
chatId, then compare the context carried in against the sample source text. The condition is met when the carried content matches the source and no content from another session is mixed in. It is not met when the carried content does not match the source. - After selecting the
json_schemareply format, issue one request and compare the returned structure against the format requirement that was filled in. The condition is met when the structure matches the requirement. It is not met when the returned structure does not match or cannot be parsed. These are paper-based checking steps and have not been carried out.
This page addresses only brand after-sales repair service, copy drafting for goods and marketing, and multi-turn prompts. Whether a specific promotional sentence in product copy is supported by the materials is a separate question and does not become an enterprise identity certification tutorial. Retrieval similarity and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. A shared vector model requirement for a knowledge base does not extend to business-registration sites or other external systems. No system error or automatic business action is asserted where the source text does not describe one. A pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission, and an offered option is not an execution. Missing evidence stays missing.