What the documents look like
For copy drafting in Fresh-food concession counters, this page examines FastGPT multi-turn prompts. Add loss and receiving evidence across turns without treating earlier copy as batch proof. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Suppose a concession agreement leaves losses for discussion, a sales note is compiled, and receiving registration lacks evidence for the current batch. An initial counter introduction followed by a sourcing question should inspect the history, inspection text and instructions actually carried into the request. Earlier generated wording that sourcing is traceable proves no current-batch inspection. Compiled sales establish no agreed loss allocation. These invented passages assess no actual food-safety result, sales volume or contract validity.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Counter-copy turns | Hypothetical material | Turn inspection |
|---|---|---|
| Agreement | Losses for discussion | No invented liable party |
| Sales | Compiled note | No verified-sales claim |
| Inspection | Current evidence missing | Retain gap |
| History | Earlier introduction | No factual-source substitution |
| Publication | Repeat after evidence arrives | Human sourcing and confirmation review |
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 follow-up omits the inspection gap and repeats earlier complete-sourcing wording, inspect actual history and receipt of the current registration before supplying it again.
- If a question about loss responsibility turns separate discussion into accepted counter liability, inspect the original clause and any mutual supplementary confirmation.
- If earlier-batch inspection wording replaces missing current evidence, compare batch identity and receiving records. Conversational continuity supplies no missing document.
How to verify the setup
Keep a draft fixed while adding current inspection evidence and loss positions across turns. Ask which sentences can remain and which need evidence. Compare new and history-bearing conversations, retaining actual requests and checking history selection against the deployment and model without invented limits. Instructions should attribute sources and retain missing evidence explicitly. A request for persuasive wording is insufficient. Responsible staff must check sourcing and contractual confirmations before publication.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Concession Contract, Daily Sales Report, Loss Report and Food Purchase Inspection Records |
| Candidate sources | POS System, Supplier Delivery Note, Food Safety Ledger and Store Inventory Count |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |