What the documents look like
For staff training in B2B marketplaces, this page examines FastGPT multi-turn prompts. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
A B2B training exercise can distinguish delivery commitments in an electronic contract from transaction status in a settlement statement. One source records an agreement and the other a particular state; transaction status does not establish performance of every after-sales commitment. Define the current lesson and source scope in the prompt. Compare the actual history for an initial question and follow-up, checking for a conclusion about another transaction carried from an earlier task. Each training judgment should trace to current material.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Conversation or implementation check | B2B training source relationship | Acceptance trace |
|---|---|---|
| Source roles | Separate commitments from transaction status | No inferred completion of all service commitments |
| History input | Distinguish the current transaction from other tasks | An older conclusion entering the answer |
| Version reference | Retain old and new identities and conditions | Correct subject after optimization |
| Empty-history comparison | Use the current originals for the same question | Distinguish source change from historical carryover |
| Process gap | Admission and service rules need evidence | Inspect actual input and citations after addition |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Prompt and task | Define sources, the task and evidence-gap handling. |
Conversation history | Inspect the history actually submitted. |
Question optimization | Review reference resolution and question expansion. |
Model and length | Inspect context and reply length separately. |
Reply format | json_schema needs its format and parsing validation. |
Three common errors
- If settlement status becomes complete service performance, compare contract promises and status wording with actual events. The sources perform different evidentiary roles.
- If a new-contract follow-up returns to an earlier version or transaction, retain identities, actual history and rewritten question. Compare current-source-only input to locate failed handoff.
- If quotations or settlement produce purported confirmed admission and handling procedures, trace each step. Obtain actual internal instructions and retest; complete fields establish no complete training basis.
How to verify the setup
Quotation or settlement wording alone does not supply complete supplier-admission or service procedures. For a follow-up asking what happens next, inspect whether the answer invents review steps from history, then identify the internal process source still needed. After adding it, retain the version and repeat the original and boundary questions, checking actual input and citations. A valid format or continuing conversation does not establish a complete training source set.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Business Certification Documents, Inquiry and Quotation Sheet, Electronic Contract and Platform Settlement Statement |
| Candidate sources | B2B Platform, National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, Payment Transaction Records and Logistics Tracking |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |