What the documents look like
Parcel labels and handoff work sits at the point where a parcel leaves the warehouse, and the central issue is carrier scan responsibility. The documents used in this category come from courier systems, WMS shipment records, the GB/T courier service standard, and carrier bills. Day-to-day files include electronic waybills, handoff checklists, pickup scan records, and exception parcel registers. Data updates per batch and per day.
For copy drafting, these documents must be turned into statements that can be shown externally, and the drafting must avoid presenting a pickup scan that has not happened as a completed fact. Multi-turn dialogue and prompt behavior in this step is shaped by history records, question optimization, model length, and response format. History records determine whether earlier turns can be carried into a later turn. Question optimization handles pronoun resolution. Model length limits how long documents and follow-up questions can be combined. Response format affects what downstream nodes can consume.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source material is three sentences. Sentence one: this batch of parcels was shipped from the warehouse on 10 March 2025, the handoff checklist number is JJ-20250310-01, and the total is 120 pieces. Sentence two: carrier scan records show that as of 18:00 on 10 March 2025, 98 pieces had been scanned and the remaining 22 pieces showed no scan. Sentence three: the exception parcel register records that 3 of the parcels had damaged outer packaging and were marked separately. The draft sentence to be judged is: all 120 parcels in this batch have completed pickup scanning, and the handoff has no exceptions.
To judge that draft sentence, the input is the three source sentences together with the draft sentence. The comparison targets are the scanned quantity of 98 in the source material against the claim of full completion in the draft, and the 3 damaged pieces in the source material against the claim of no exceptions in the draft. The observable result is that the draft sentence disagrees with the source material on both the scan completion field and the exception field, so the draft is unsupported.
In a multi-turn exchange, if the first turn already provided the material above and the second turn asks how many pieces remain, the history record must carry the earlier text forward. Question optimization must resolve "how many remain" into "22 pieces remain unscanned". Model length must accommodate the three material sentences plus the follow-up. If the response format is set to json_schema, the corresponding format requirement must be filled in and the returned structure checked.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | 3 turns | Must cover the source material turn and the follow-up turn; compare whether the history actually carried in includes the three material sentences |
| Response limit | Enabled at 500 | The draft judgment needs a short conclusion; compare whether the reply is truncated |
| Temperature | Lower | Copy judgment needs stability; compare whether repeated replies stay consistent |
| Response format | Default | A plain judgment does not need a fixed structure; switch to json_schema if a downstream node must read the output |
| Multimodal recognition | Off | The material is text; compare whether an image link is mistakenly treated as input |
| Thinking configuration | No thinking | The judgment task is simple; compare whether the conclusion is returned directly |
Three common errors
- Writing "98 pieces scanned" from the source material as "all pickup scanning completed". The input is the three source sentences. The comparison is 98 against 120. The observable result is a quantity mismatch. This error presents an incomplete state as a completed state.
- Writing "3 pieces with damaged outer packaging" from the source material as "handoff has no exceptions". The input is the three source sentences. The comparison is 3 against 0. The observable result is an exception count mismatch. This error ignores the exception parcel register.
- Failing to carry the first-turn material into the second-turn follow-up, so the remaining quantity cannot be computed. The input is a two-turn exchange. The comparison is whether the history record includes the three first-turn material sentences. The observable result is a second-turn reply that lacks a basis.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source sentences of the hypothetical exercise sample together with the draft sentence. Compare the draft sentence against the source material on the scan completion field and the exception field. Observe whether the result is unsupported. The expectation is unsupported; no actual test is claimed.
- Input a two-turn exchange where the first turn provides the three source sentences and the second turn asks how many pieces remain. Compare whether the history record carries the first-turn material. Observe whether the second-turn reply cites 22 pieces. The expectation is that it cites 22 pieces; no actual test is claimed.
- Input an empty result []. Compare whether the downstream node handles it as an empty result. Observe whether a fabricated rule retrieval returning [] appears. The expectation is that it is handled as an empty result; no actual test is claimed.