What the documents look like
Platform product title and detail compliance handles advertising truthfulness and qualification display. It does not handle parcel delivery. The daily materials are a product title table, detail page assets, an advertising prohibited-words list, and quality inspection reports. This page covers one task: comparison of contract and transaction materials, with tool calls and plugins carrying the work of feeding the title table, detail assets, prohibited-words list, and inspection reports to the model as needed and retaining the call trace. Material updates occur weekly or at each new listing. That frequency only affects which version is taken at comparison time; it does not imply batch synchronization or a transaction-triggered mechanism. What must be checked is whether the same subject, the same period, and the same field carry consistent values.
Constraints at the tool calls step
A tool description tells the model what the tool is for. Input conditions and situations where the tool should not be called need to be written clearly. System module parameters are fixed; plugin parameters are configurable. A parameter description is not an execution assurance. When a suitable required parameter is absent, the model may not call the tool; prompt wording can guide the user to supply it, and the actual request should be checked. In advanced orchestration, available tools are connected to the tool call module, and the guidance is to debug with a small number of tools first. The tool call termination node ends the current call and does not call the AI to summarize tool results. Retrieval does not carry authorization, and a similarity setting does not exclude unrelated business or unauthorized records. Libraries built on different embedding models cannot be associated together; check identifiers and exclude non-matching records.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. Source text one: the title table registers "Product A, subject is Merchant Jia, March 2025 batch, field 'material' filled as 'pure cotton'." Source text two: the inspection report states "Product A, subject Merchant Jia, March 2025 batch, material test result is cotton 95%, polyester 5%." Source text three: the advertising prohibited-words list marks "pure cotton" as a claim requiring inspection evidence. Draft sentence to be judged: "The Product A title uses 'pure cotton,' and the March 2025 batch inspection report has been attached." This sample is for paper checking only. It does not indicate any real subject or a comparison that has occurred.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Tool description | State "compare title table, detail assets, prohibited-words list, inspection report" | Compare against the four sample material types; confirm the description covers the input conditions |
| Required parameters | Subject, product, batch, field name | When one is missing the model may not call; compare item by item against the draft sentence fields |
| Tool connection | Connect only the title table and inspection report tools | Debug with a small number of tools first; compare against the call record before later expansion |
| Tool call termination | Place after the inspection report comparison | Compare against the end-of-flow position; confirm no further AI summary is triggered |
| Custom tool variable | Fill a parameter description for the prohibited-words list node | Compare against nodes not treated as tool parameters; check the actual request |
These values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise. They are not official default values.
Three common errors
- Treating a parameter description as an execution assurance. When the "material" field and the inspection report are input, if the actual request is not checked, the model may fabricate a parameter. Check: compare the tool parameter description with the actual call request, and observe whether the request contains subject, product, and batch.
- Treating a retrieval result as authorization. After a title table query is input, treating the records as directly comparable skips subject checking. Check: compare the subject of the returned records with the sample subject, and observe whether non-matching records are excluded.
- Treating a pending review as effective. When the draft sentence's "report has been attached" is input, if the report status is pending review, the conclusion does not hold. Check: compare the report status field with the draft sentence wording, and observe whether it is unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input sample source texts one, two, and three plus the draft sentence. Compare the "material" field value "pure cotton" with the report's "cotton 95%, polyester 5%." Observe whether the same field is identified as carrying mutually exclusive values. The expectation is that the contradiction is identified. No claim is made that this was actually tested.
- Verification two: input the sample subject "Merchant Jia" and the returned records. Compare subject identifiers and observe whether non-matching records are excluded. The expectation is exclusion. First-hit matching or full recall is not assured.
- Verification three: input the draft sentence "the March 2025 batch inspection report has been attached." Compare the report status field and observe whether it is pending review. The expectation is unsupported, with the evidence gap retained. If retrieval returns an empty result, the downstream design can be checked with the paper input []. No claim is made that a fictional rule search necessarily returns [].
This page addresses only platform product title and detail compliance, contract and transaction material comparison, and tool calls and plugins. At operational handover, which materials, operations, and requests sit at which authorization state must be distinguished; retrieval or a form is not authorization to execute.