What the documents look like
This page addresses copy drafting for cross-border return refurbishment and resale. Source material comes from overseas warehouse WMS records, TikTok return centers, Amazon return reports, and product inspection photographs. The working documents are return inspection sheets, refurbishment records, scrap declarations, and relisting lists. An inspection sheet records product condition and return grade; a refurbishment record describes the handling action; a relisting list defines the sellable scope. Any product fact cited in drafted copy must appear in these materials. A condition, grade, or handling conclusion that the materials do not state remains unknown. The distinguishing feature compared with overseas warehouse replenishment is that this category handles reverse logistics and product condition, so the copy basis shifts with each batch of return inspection results.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue must distinguish a new conversation from a continued one. When chatId is passed, the system retrieves the conversation from the database, uses the last item of the messages array as the user question, and ignores the remaining messages. When chatId is not passed, context is built entirely from messages. The prompt must state the material scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence, so the model does not write in business facts. Reply format follows the downstream consumer; selecting json_schema requires filling in the corresponding format requirements and checking the returned structure. Model and length are checked against the capabilities shown in the configuration dialog and the actual context.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. Material text for comparison: "Return inspection sheet R-2024-0517: item is a folding outdoor table, quantity 12, inspection date 17 May 2024, appearance condition minor scratches, function test passed, return grade B." "Refurbishment record F-2024-0518: same batch of 12 units, outer packaging replaced, tabletop not replaced, handling date 18 May 2024." Draft sentence to be judged: "After refurbishment this batch of folding outdoor tables is in brand-new unused condition and can be relisted as new." The comparison object is the condition field stated in the inspection sheet and refurbishment record. Neither material contains the phrase "brand-new unused," so the draft sentence is not supported by the materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists officially documented settings and implementation checks relevant to this feature and primary task, around the sample above.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Check method |
|---|---|---|
| Memory rounds | Keep a small number of history rounds | Compare the context actually carried in, distinguishing new from continued conversations |
| Reply format | Plain text | Switch to json_schema when downstream needs a fixed structure, fill in format requirements |
| Temperature | On the low side | Compare against stable scenarios such as customer service and knowledge-base Q&A |
| Reply limit | Adjust to the required draft length | Compare against the length the draft sentence needs, observe whether truncation occurs |
| Multimodal recognition | Select according to the model's shown capability | Check whether inspection photos are sent as image input |
| Hide AI output | According to downstream node needs | Check whether intermediate results are passed to the next node for rewriting |
The starting values are choices for this hypothetical trial and are not official defaults. The material update frequency is daily and per batch; this page does not derive batch synchronization or real-time mechanisms from that.
Three common errors
- Writing "minor scratches, function test passed, grade B" as "brand-new unused." The input is the two material texts above; the comparison object is the condition field; the materials do not state a brand-new condition.
- Expanding "outer packaging replaced" in the refurbishment record into a tabletop or full-unit refurbishment. The input is refurbishment record F-2024-0518; the comparison object is the handling action field; the record states only that outer packaging was replaced.
- Treating a new conversation without chatId as a continued conversation and misapplying the previous batch's inspection conclusion. The input is the chatId value state; the comparison object is the context source; when chatId is not passed, context is built entirely from messages.
How to verify the setup
- Input the original text of inspection sheet R-2024-0517 and refurbishment record F-2024-0518 together with the draft sentence, and compare the condition wording in the draft sentence against the condition field in the materials. When the draft sentence contains "brand-new unused" and the materials contain no such wording, the sentence is judged unsupported and must be rewritten or the materials supplemented.
- Input two consecutive follow-up turns under the same chatId and compare the context actually carried into the second turn. Observe whether the system retrieves the database conversation, uses the last message as the question, and ignores the remaining messages.
- Input an explicit paper empty result [] and compare the downstream node's handling design for an empty reference. Observe whether downstream treats it as an empty reference, without assuming that a fictional rule search necessarily returns empty.
The same-vector-model requirement for retrieval libraries is limited to the association scope and does not extend to external systems needing the same model. Relevance does not carry permission or entity isolation, and retrieval does not constitute authorization. Interactive waiting, record status, and hidden dialog boxes are interpreted per the documentation, without assuming corresponding control switches exist.