What the documents look like
Semi-managed sellers maintain overseas inventory and arrange shipment themselves, rather than supplying goods to the platform. Day-to-day materials include the product declaration form, the overseas inventory table, the price declaration, and the platform fulfillment order. These materials determine whether a product can be listed and whether shipment runs late, and they update daily and per order. In store service and internal training, multi-turn prompts turn material content into checkable replies. The prompt must state the material scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence. This page does not depend on batch synchronization or real-time trigger mechanisms.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
The prompt must limit the model to citing material text and must not let the model add business facts that the materials do not contain. History handling needs to distinguish what a new session and a continued session actually carry into context. For continuous knowledge-base conversation, whether short questions receive pronoun resolution and question expansion must be checked against the actual materials, and cannot be assumed to apply everywhere. Model and length settings need to be checked against the context window and the reply cap, and long documents combined with follow-up questions need separate testing. The reply format is chosen by what the downstream step consumes; when json_schema is selected, the format requirement must be filled in and the returned structure verified. Retrieval or a form only collects values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization require separate downstream implementation. Retrieval does not constitute authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the material text reads, "From March 1 to March 31, 2024, overseas warehouse Zone A holds 120 units of SKU-1001; the procurement cost table records a unit price of 12 yuan; the price declaration records a declared price of 15 yuan for this SKU, with status pending review." The draft sentence to be judged reads, "The declared price for this SKU has taken effect and the item can be sold externally at 15 yuan." The check compares the status field of the declaration with the "has taken effect" wording of the draft sentence. When the status is pending review, that sentence is not supported and remains to be verified.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check for this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model that supports the required context length and tool calling | Must hold the declaration and inventory table text |
| Memory rounds | This hypothetical trial starts at 3 rounds, chosen because training dialogue usually keeps a small amount of history; compare against the default and adjust by observed effect | Checks whether a follow-up carries prior text |
| Temperature | Use a lower value for rule-checking scenarios | Reduces randomness in declaration-status replies |
| Reply format | Keep the default for ordinary Q&A; when a fixed structure is needed, select json_schema and fill in the format requirement | Lets a downstream node read the status field |
| Thinking configuration | For simple status checks, choose no thinking or minimal thinking | Reduces unnecessary waiting |
| Hide AI thinking | Temporarily turn this off during debugging to observe intermediate content | Checks whether pending review is misread |
Three common errors
- Treating a declaration status of "pending review" as already effective and writing "has taken effect" in the draft sentence. Input is the declaration status field; comparison object is the draft sentence wording; observable result is a mismatch between the two.
- Leaving the material scope unstated in the prompt so the model adds a shipping deadline not present in the materials. Input is the prompt and the material text; comparison object is whether the materials contain that field; observable result is wording that does not appear in the source.
- Treating a retrieval result as operational authorization. Input is the declaration record returned by retrieval; comparison object is whether approval or signature evidence exists; observable result is an external action taken while authorization evidence is absent.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample text and the draft sentence "The declared price for this SKU has taken effect." Compare the declaration status field with the draft sentence. The condition is met when the model points out that the status is pending review and that the sentence is not supported.
- Input a paper empty result [] together with the downstream continuation design. Compare whether the downstream step follows the empty-result branch. The condition is met when the empty result is not treated as a hit or as authorization.
- Input one follow-up containing an image and one follow-up without an image. Compare model capability with the multimodal setting. The condition is met when unsupported types are not sent to the model and the reference token cap is not replaced by the thinking budget.