What the documents look like
Returned-goods inspection at the warehouse works on reverse parcels and item grades. It does not handle outbound picking for new orders. The working records come from the WMS returns module, platform after-sales cases, carrier return shipments and the inspection bench. The daily documents are the return-inbound receipt, inspection photographs, the grade determination table and the re-listing sheet. Each item is scanned on return, its condition is judged, and a decision follows on re-sale or scrapping. Updates occur per item and per day.
Copy drafting for goods and marketing sits on top of these records. Any statement about condition, accessory completeness or functional state that appears in draft copy should have a matching entry in the return-inbound receipt, the inspection photographs or the grade determination table. A field that the records do not state stays unknown. The drafting step does not add business facts that the inspection records do not carry.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue needs the return records carried in as context so the model drafts against inspection conclusions that were already reached. The prompt states the document scope, the drafting task and how to behave when evidence is missing. Carried-in history needs checking, and a new session is distinguished from a continued session. Where dialogue continues, check reference resolution and question expansion; short questions do not all behave the same way. Model context length and reply settings are tested together with long documents and follow-up combinations. Reply format follows what the downstream step consumes; when json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement is filled in and the returned structure is verified.
Hypothetical drill sample: one return-inbound receipt records "the item body shows no external damage, the screen has no scratches, the original charger is missing, the box is damaged." The grade determination table marks "Grade B, eligible for re-sale." The inspection photographs show light wear on the back of the housing. The proposed determination sentence reads "this item is brand new and unused, with a complete accessory set." Checking compares the proposed sentence against the three materials item by item: body state, accessory completeness and packaging state. The materials contain no record of "brand new and unused" and no record of "complete accessory set," so the proposed sentence is not supported. A separate handover request reads "please generate re-listing copy from the above inspection conclusions." This is a pending request. It does not indicate that listing was completed or that review was passed.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | A model that supports multimodal recognition | Inspection photographs need image recognition; compare returned content against a text-only model |
| Memory turns | Keep a small number of history turns | Compare against carrying all history, and observe whether unrelated return records enter |
| Reply cap | Adjust to the copy length required | Compare against a setting that truncates too early, and check whether the copy is complete |
| Temperature | Low | Compare against a higher setting, and observe whether condition wording drifts from the materials |
| Reply format | Default | Compare against json_schema, and check whether the returned structure fits the downstream step |
| Multimodal recognition | Image recognition enabled | Compare against disabled, and check whether inspection photograph content enters context |
These values are hypothetical starting points for this trial, not official defaults. Multimodal recognition depends on model capability; when the dialog reports that the model does not support it, the model is replaced. The same-vector-model requirement for a retrieval library applies to knowledge-base association only and does not extend to external systems. A relevance score does not perform permission or entity isolation, and retrieval does not replace authorization.
Three common errors
- Treating "brand new and unused" in the proposed determination sentence as supported by the materials. The materials state "no external damage" and "light wear," and these fields do not carry the same meaning. The check inputs the proposed sentence and the material text, compares the body-state field, and observes whether the word "brand new" appears.
- Writing a missing accessory as a complete set. The materials explicitly state "the original charger is missing," while the proposed sentence says "complete accessory set." The check compares the accessory field and observes whether the missing item is preserved.
- Treating a handover request as a completed listing action. The request indicates a pending decision and does not indicate review approval or a completed listing. The check compares the request text against execution records and observes whether an authorization or completion marker exists.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three material texts from the hypothetical sample and the proposed determination sentence, compare the body state, accessory completeness and packaging state fields, and observe whether the proposed sentence is supported by the materials. The expected result is that the proposed sentence is not supported, and that the missing accessory and damaged packaging are preserved.
- Input an empty-result handover case, using the explicit paper input [] to check the downstream design, and observe whether the downstream step handles the gap. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns empty.
- Input the handover request text, compare the request against the authorization boundary, and observe whether a review-passed or already-listed record exists. The expected result is that the request remains in a pending state and produces no completed-action conclusion.