What the documents look like
Pinduoduo low-price campaign operations revolve around low-price resource slots, campaign inventory and refund-rate fluctuation. Compared with a Tmall flagship store, the working materials here are the campaign registration form, the product cost calculation sheet, the after-sales refund record and platform in-site messages. Copy drafting for products and marketing is constrained directly by these materials: the campaign price, the inventory quantity and the refund reason all shape how price wording, inventory scope and after-sales commitments may appear in a draft. The brief gives the update frequency as daily or per campaign, so a draft must be aligned to the current campaign registration form and cost sheet rather than to an earlier round.
The four document types serve different roles. The registration form carries the campaign price and the effective window. The cost sheet carries unit cost and logistics cost. The refund record carries refund reasons observed in a recent window. The in-site message carries platform notices. A draft sentence is supported only when the specific field it asserts can be traced to the matching document, for the same subject, the same period and the same field.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue carries earlier turns into later ones. If an earlier turn discussed one product's cost structure, a later turn drafting a promotional sentence may reuse a price or inventory figure that the current materials do not confirm. The prompt therefore needs to state the material scope, the answering task and the treatment of missing evidence, so the model does not supply business facts on its own. Continuing a session and starting a new session take different inputs, and the context actually carried in must be checked. Model and length settings affect how long documents and follow-up combinations are handled; reply format follows what downstream steps need to read.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The material text reads: "Campaign registration form states: product A joins this low-price campaign, campaign price 9.9 yuan, campaign period 1 June 2025 to 7 June 2025. Product cost calculation sheet states: product A unit cost 8.5 yuan, logistics cost 1.2 yuan. After-sales refund record states: product A refund reasons over the last 7 days are mainly 'size mismatch'." One draft sentence to be judged is: "Product A campaign price is 9.9 yuan, sold below cost, a bargain." The comparison object is the relation between campaign price and cost, for the period 1 June 2025 to 7 June 2025.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model whose maximum context covers the combined material length | Compare the model's maximum context against the total length of registration form, cost sheet and refund record, so all three can be included together |
| Memory turns | Hypothetically set to 2 turns | Compare the history turns carried into a continued session against the context actually needed, and observe whether unconfirmed price information is introduced |
| Temperature | Hypothetically set low | Compare the stability of the same draft sentence across temperature values; copy drafting must stay consistent with the materials |
| Reply limit | Hypothetically set to a length that holds a complete draft | Compare truncation against draft completeness, so a key price or period is not cut off |
| Reply format | Plain text | Keep the default when no downstream step reads a fixed structure |
| Multimodal recognition | Decide whether to enable image recognition according to model capability | When materials contain product images or screenshots, compare whether the model can read image content before and after enabling |
The memory-turns starting value is a hypothetical exercise setting, not an official default. Its reason is that the sample needs only the current campaign context; the comparison method is to inspect the history preview returned for a continued session and check whether it contains a price figure absent from the current registration form.
Three common errors
- Using cost data from the cost sheet directly in a draft without checking that campaign price and cost belong to the same period and the same field. Input: the cost sheet and the draft sentence. Comparison: whether campaign price and cost fall within the same campaign period. Observable result: the draft sentence claims "below cost" when the material does not support that claim.
- Not checking what history a continued session carries, so the model reuses an inventory quantity that the current materials do not confirm. Input: the continued-session history and the current materials. Comparison: the inventory value in history against the inventory value in the current registration form. Observable result: an inconsistency appears between the two values.
- Turning a refund reason in the after-sales refund record directly into a quality promise in the draft. Input: the refund record and the draft sentence. Comparison: whether the refund reason corresponds to the draft promise. Observable result: the draft claims "no size problem will occur," which the refund record does not support.
How to verify the setup
- Use the material text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Input: campaign registration form, cost sheet and the draft sentence. Compare the campaign price of 9.9 yuan against cost of 8.5 yuan plus logistics of 1.2 yuan. Observe whether the draft sentence is judged unsupported by the materials. Expected: the phrase "below cost" in the draft does not match the material figures. This is a paper judgment, not a completed test.
- Use the period 1 June 2025 to 7 June 2025 from the hypothetical sample. Input: the draft sentence and the campaign registration form. Compare whether the price wording in the draft is valid within that period. Observe whether a commitment outside that period appears. Expected: wording outside the period is unsupported.
- Use the refund reason "size mismatch" from the hypothetical sample. Input: the refund record and the draft sentence. Compare the refund reason against the draft promise. Observe whether the draft converts a single refund reason into a general quality guarantee. Expected: the draft promise is unsupported by the refund record.
In all three checks the evidence gap stays open where the materials are silent. A pending review does not show that an operation permission is missing. Retrieval is not authorization, and a relevance score is not an entity or permission filter. Where a field is not provided in the materials, the value remains unknown.