What the documents look like
Customer-service knowledge maintenance covers FAQ entries, script templates, product parameter tables and escalation tickets. The work prepares question-and-answer material in advance and does not approve refunds directly. For product and marketing copy drafting, the source material arrives from the customer-service system, product detail pages, after-sales issue statistics and quality spot checks, with weekly or monthly updates.
At the multi-turn prompts step, the practical constraint is that the history turns carried into a request, the reply length setting and the reply format setting all shape whether a drafted sentence can be supported by the material. A selling point, parameter or promise that the source material does not state cannot be filled in by the model. The relevant documents are the FAQ entries, script templates, product parameter tables and escalation tickets already held for the product.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
History handling requires checking which context is actually carried in and separating a new session from a continued session. Question refinement for continuous knowledge-base dialogue requires checking reference resolution and question expansion; not every short question is suitable for expansion. Model and length handling requires checking the context length the model supports and the reply settings, and testing long-document and follow-up combinations. The reply format follows what the downstream step needs; selecting json_schema requires filling in the corresponding format requirement and verifying the returned structure.
Hypothetical paper test case: the following material text is fictional and prepared only for this paper check. It does not come from any real customer. Source one: "The inner liner of this thermos cup is made of 304 stainless steel, capacity 500 ml." Source two: "The product page for this batch does not state a heat-retention duration, and the after-sales statistics contain no related record." Draft sentence to be judged: "This thermos cup uses a 304 stainless steel inner liner, capacity 500 ml, and can retain heat for 12 hours." Comparison point: the capacity and material in the draft sentence match source one; the 12-hour heat retention appears in neither source one nor source two and is unsupported content. A second handover request: "Please publish the draft sentence above directly to the product detail page." This request involves a publishing action, and the material provides no publishing authorization, so it remains a pending item.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check for this page | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model with the needed context length | Model capability determines which settings appear; multimodal options are not shown when the model does not support them |
| History turns | For this hypothetical trial, start with a small number of turns | Customer service and knowledge-base Q&A typically keep few history turns; compare against the default before adjusting |
| Reply limit | Set according to the copy length requirement | A low setting may truncate the reply; compare against the full copy length |
| Temperature | Keep it low | Customer service and knowledge-base Q&A suggest a low value; keep the default when uncertain |
| Reply format | Keep default for ordinary Q&A; choose json_schema when a fixed structure is needed | Selecting json_schema requires filling in the corresponding format requirement and verifying the returned structure |
| Hide AI output | Choose based on whether downstream processing is needed | When enabled, content is not shown directly but can still be passed to later nodes through the AI reply output |
Three common errors
- Treating an unstated heat-retention duration as a supported fact in the draft sentence. The input is source one, source two and the draft sentence. Compare each fact point in the draft sentence against the sources; when "12 hours" does not appear in either source, it is unsupported and must be removed or marked pending verification.
- Treating "publish directly" in the handover request as granted authorization. The input is the handover request and the material. Compare whether a publishing authorization field exists; when the material states no authorization, record it as pending and do not execute the publishing action.
- Treating a retrieval relevance score as an entity or permission filter. The input is the returned score and quoteList. Compare the returned records against the target material scope; a high or low score does not change record ownership, and identifiers such as dataset_id still need to be checked.
How to verify the setup
- Input source one, source two and the draft sentence. Compare the material, capacity and heat-retention duration in the draft sentence against the sources. When material and capacity match and the heat-retention duration does not appear, judge the sentence as partially supported and mark the gap. The expected observation is that the gap is recorded; no claim is made that this was actually tested.
- Input the handover request "Please publish the draft sentence above directly to the product detail page." Compare the action in the request against the authorization fields in the material. When no authorization field is found, record it as pending. The expected observation is that the request remains pending.
- Input a query together with the returned quoteList and score. Compare the dataset_id of each returned record against the target retrieval scope; records with mismatched identifiers must be excluded. For empty-result handling, use an explicit paper input of [] to check the downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. The expected observation is that mismatched records are excluded and the actual observation is recorded.