What the documents look like
Channel diversion review material centres on regional and price order. It does not handle rebate amounts. The working file set for this category normally contains diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices and inspection photographs. Taken together these items answer two questions: whether a given batch appeared in a non-authorised region, and whether a shop's listed price sits below the agreed level. In the copy drafting step the question is narrower. A proposed marketing or product sentence has to be checked against what those documents actually state, for example whether a shop is an authorised channel, or whether a batch originated in a designated region. Material updates weekly or at irregular intervals. Update frequency does not change how this page's feature behaves, so it is not developed further here.
A second practical point shapes the drafting step. Complaint forms, code records and notices describe different objects. A complaint form names a shop and a batch. A code record traces a batch to a shipping record. A penalty notice records a decision state. A draft sentence that merges these objects can look supported while resting on two separate documents that never speak to each other. The multi-turn conversation and prompt design therefore has to keep the material scope, the answering task and the treatment of missing evidence explicit.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue carries earlier context forward. The prompt needs to state the document scope, the answering task, and how to behave when evidence is absent. The history actually passed into the model should be checked, and a new session distinguished from a continued session. Question optimisation is reviewed only where continuous knowledge-base dialogue requires pronoun resolution and question expansion; short questions do not automatically need it. Model and length settings should be checked against the context the model supports and the reply configuration in use. Reply format follows what the downstream step consumes; when json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement is filled in and the returned structure checked. Retrieval similarity does not carry permission or entity isolation, and the same-embedding-model requirement for a retrieval library does not extend to other systems.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source text supplied for checking reads: "Complaint form A-07 records that on 12 March 2025 an e-commerce shop was listing goods from batch B-2311, and the shipping record for that batch points to East China distributor D-12. The penalty notice has not been issued." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "This shop is an authorised channel and the batch source is compliant." The checking task is to decide whether the draft sentence is supported by the material. The material states only the batch shipping pointer and the complaint subject. It does not state the shop's authorisation status, and it does not state a penalty conclusion. Both assertions in the draft sentence are therefore unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | A model whose maximum context covers the sample | Compare the model's maximum context against the combined length of sample material plus follow-up |
| Memory turns | Set to 2 turns | The sample needs only the previous turn's source text; compare against 0 turns to see whether the reference resolves |
| Reply cap | Enabled at a medium length | Compare the truncation point against the completeness of the draft sentence |
| Temperature | Set low | Compare repeated outputs for the same input to see whether they stay stable |
| Reply format | Keep default | If a downstream step needs a fixed structure, switch to json_schema and fill in the format requirement |
| Multimodal recognition | Off when the sample has no image input | Enable only when inspection photographs are supplied and the model supports the type, then check the read result |
These values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating a batch shipping pointer in the material as proof of shop authorisation. Check: supply the source text and the draft sentence, compare whether each asserted field appears in the material, and observe whether absent fields are marked unsupported.
- Treating a not-yet-issued penalty notice as a completed penalty. Check: supply the notice status description, compare the status wording against "issued", and observe whether the conclusion stays pending verification.
- Using a similarity setting to exclude unrelated shops. Check: supply the retrieval configuration and query, compare returned records against permission fields, and observe whether authorisation scope still needs manual review.
How to verify the setup
- Supply the hypothetical sample source text and draft sentence, compare each assertion in the draft sentence against the material fields, and expect both assertions to be marked unsupported while the unstated authorisation status remains missing.
- Supply an empty retrieval result, compare how the downstream node handles an empty list, and expect no business conclusion to be generated and the gap to be recorded.
- Supply a follow-up containing an image, compare the model's multimodal capability against the recognition switch, and expect the image to be read only when the model supports it and the switch is on; otherwise record it as unprocessed.