What the documents look like
Dealer ordering events serve offline dealer reservations and do not directly manage platform storefronts. Materials update by quarter or by year. Copy drafting for products and marketing depends on four document types: the ordering handbook, the ordering contract, the sample list, and credit approval. These documents set the boundary for what the copy can state. The ordering handbook supplies product specifications and policy wording. The ordering contract and credit approval limit what may be promised about settlement and credit lines. The sample list defines which physical items are available for explanation this season. When drafted copy crosses these document boundaries, later explanation, order collection, and payment collection stages can produce inconsistent wording.
The ordering handbook may state that a sample is open for reservation only to dealers who have signed the current season ordering contract, with a reservation deadline. A credit approval form may show an application status that remains under review. Copy that states broader availability or completed approval moves beyond what these documents support. The drafting task stays inside the material; it does not add business facts that the documents do not contain.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
In multi-turn dialogue, history is carried into the model with each turn. During copy drafting, the context actually carried in needs checking, and a new session must be distinguished from a continued session in terms of input. The prompt should state the material scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence, so the model does not write in business facts on its own.
When continuous knowledge-base dialogue is required, check coreference resolution and question expansion. Short questions do not necessarily suit that treatment. Model context length and reply limits affect combined testing of long documents with follow-up questions. Reply format follows the downstream handoff; when json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement must be filled in and the returned structure verified. Retrieval performs recall only and does not perform authorization judgment. A relevance score is not a permission or entity filter condition.
A hypothetical paper test case: the material text for checking reads, "Page 3 of the current season ordering handbook states: Sample A is open for reservation only to dealers who have signed the current season ordering contract; the reservation deadline is March 20" and "The credit approval form shows: a dealer's requested credit line is under review." The draft sentence to be judged reads, "Sample A is now open for reservation to all dealers, and the credit line has been approved." The checking parties are the brand channel department and regional dealers. The object is Sample A. The status is contract signing and credit under review. The effective scope is before March 20.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point for this page | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | Keep a small number of history turns | Compare with the context actually carried into a continued session, and check whether prior-turn material is cited |
| Reply limit | Raise according to copy length needs | Compare with truncation, and confirm the explanation is not cut off early |
| Temperature | Lower | Compare multiple outputs from the same prompt, and observe whether wording stays stable |
| Reply format | Default, or json_schema per downstream handoff | When json_schema is chosen, fill in the format requirement and verify the returned structure |
| Multimodal recognition | Enable only when the model supports it | Compare with the model capability display; unsupported types are not sent |
| Prompt | State material scope and missing-evidence handling | Compare with the material text, and check whether business facts are added |
Three common errors
- Writing an under-review status as approved. The material text shows only that the credit application is under review. The draft sentence states the credit line has been approved, which treats an incomplete status as a completed fact. The check compares the approval form status field with the draft sentence wording.
- Writing availability for signed dealers as availability for all dealers. The ordering handbook limits Sample A to dealers who have signed the current season ordering contract. The draft sentence broadens this to all dealers, so the subject scope is enlarged. The check compares the handbook opening audience with the draft sentence subject.
- Treating a relevance score as a permission filter. The score returned by retrieval indicates similarity only; it does not indicate that the dealer has been authorized. The check compares the returned records with the authorization boundary and confirms that retrieval does not perform authorization judgment.
How to verify the setup
- Input the two material passages and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare whether the draft sentence contains wording such as "all dealers" or "has been approved" that goes beyond the source text. If such wording appears, the sentence is judged unsupported.
- Input an explicit paper empty result []. Check whether the downstream handoff design treats it as empty input, without inferring that a fictional rule search necessarily returns empty.
- Input a continued-session scenario. Compare the history turns actually carried in with the configured memory turns, and check whether coreference resolution is completed within the material scope. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; first check identifiers and exclude those that do not match, then record the actual observation.