What the documents look like
Producer export tax processes combine domestic sales tax offset with export refund calculation. This combined calculation means that copy drafting for goods and marketing touches a wider document set than export refund work at trading enterprises. Verification of drafted copy needs the producer export tax refund declaration detail table, the export contract, the sales detail ledger, and the export customs declaration. The export contract and the customs declaration determine the export counterparty and the goods description, while the sales detail ledger and the declaration detail table determine the quantity and period scope. These materials update monthly, so quantities, periods and goods names cited in drafted copy need to stay consistent with the declaration materials for the current period.
In multi-turn dialogue, the goods scope discussed in an earlier turn may differ from the customs declaration batch raised in a later follow-up. Prompts need to state the material scope cited in the current turn and require that gaps be preserved when the materials do not record a value.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
History records determine the context the model actually carries in. A new session does not carry earlier turns; a continued session brings in prior chat according to the memory turns setting. When drafting copy, if an earlier turn already confirmed the goods description of one export contract, and a later turn asks for a promotional sentence about the same batch of goods, the carried history needs to be checked for that contract content so that goods descriptions from different contracts are not mixed.
Reply format follows the downstream consumer. Ordinary copy drafting keeps the default format; when a downstream node needs to read a fixed structure, select json_schema and fill in the corresponding format requirement, then check the returned structure. When hidden AI output is enabled, generated content is not shown directly but can still be passed to a downstream node through the AI reply.
Hypothetical drill sample: a tax accountant at an export producer is checking copy for a batch of self-produced goods. The source text supplied for checking reads: "Export contract number A-2025-03, goods name 'stainless steel insulated cup', export quantity 12,000 units, free on board price USD 36,000, contract signing date 10 March 2025." "The export customs declaration corresponds to the above contract, declared export quantity 12,000 units, declaration date 2 April 2025." "The sales detail ledger for April 2025 records 12,000 units of this batch of goods shipped out." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "This batch of stainless steel insulated cups has been fully exported and the tax refund has been completed." The task is to judge whether the materials above support that sentence.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check method on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model whose context length and multimodal capability meet the need, based on the capability shown in the configuration dialog | The sample contains three text materials and needs sufficient context length |
| Memory turns | Hypothetical trial starting value set to 3, because the sample needs to reach back to the contract number confirmed in the previous turn; compare with a value of 1 to observe whether contract information is lost | Check whether the history carries the A-2025-03 contract content |
| Reply limit | Adjust according to the copy length needed; a low setting may truncate the reply | The draft sentence and the judgment explanation need to be output in full |
| Temperature | Copy drafting scenarios may be set higher; rule judgment scenarios stay lower | The sample contains a factual judgment, so the value should not be high |
| Reply format | Ordinary drafting keeps the default; when a downstream consumer needs to read a structure, select json_schema and fill in the format requirement | The sample is a single-sentence judgment, so the default format is sufficient |
| Hide AI thinking | Temporarily turn this off during debugging to observe intermediate thinking | Check whether the model cites the three materials |
Three common errors
- Treating a refund completion status not recorded in the materials as supported. The three sample materials separately record contract signing, customs declaration, and outbound shipment. None records that the refund has been processed to completion, so "the tax refund has been completed" in the draft sentence remains unsupported.
- Merging materials from different periods into the same batch of goods. The sample contract signing date is 10 March 2025, the customs declaration date is 2 April 2025, and the sales detail ledger is April 2025. Checking needs to confirm that all three point to the same batch of 12,000 units, and matching quantity alone does not permit merging.
- Treating a customs declaration as export completion. The customs declaration records the declared export quantity. Declaration is an action at the customs stage, and the materials do not record the actual departure of the goods or the export completion status.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source sentences of the sample and the draft sentence, then compare whether "the tax refund has been completed" in the draft sentence has a corresponding field in the materials. None of the three materials contains a refund processing status field, so the expected result is that the statement remains unsupported and the gap is preserved.
- Input the sample materials and check whether contract number A-2025-03 appears in the carried history context. If a memory turns setting of 1 prevents the contract number from being carried in, the model may be unable to associate the contract with the customs declaration, and the expected phenomenon is that the judgment explanation lacks a reference to the contract number.
- Input the sample materials and compare the goods name and quantity across the contract, the customs declaration, and the sales detail ledger. The goods names match and all three quantities are 12,000 units, so the expected result is a consistent quantity scope. If the three quantities differ, the expected result is that the scope is pending verification and the three cannot be judged as the same batch of goods.