What the documents look like
Stock replenishment in this category runs as a daily rolling order process rather than a seasonal bulk order meeting. Dealers submit replenishment requests weekly or monthly, and brand channel managers and sales back-office staff coordinate shipment and follow up on receivables against those requests. Four document types recur in store service and internal training: the replenishment request, the inventory turnover table, the outbound delivery note, and the repayment plan. The multi-turn prompts step has to keep a model citing these materials consistently across a series of follow-up questions, and it has to avoid writing anything outside the supplied material range as a business fact.
The multi-turn setting carries prior conversation forward. A larger memory turn count makes earlier exchanges easier to reference, and it also brings in more content, which can raise consumption and affect response speed. Reply limit, temperature, Top_p, and reply format all affect output stability. Fields the material does not state remain unknown and cannot be inferred from another category. Retrieval results do not constitute authorization; forms collect values only; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Hypothetical drill sample: a regional dealer warehouse submits a replenishment request on the hypothetical date 10 June 2025, reading "Model A, 200 units, for store replenishment in week 3 of June." The same batch of material contains an inventory turnover table reading "Model A current sellable stock: 40 units." The draft sentence under review is "Model A stock is sufficient, no replenishment needed." The comparison checks the same model field in the replenishment request against the same model field in the turnover table. The two are not mutually exclusive, and the draft sentence lacks support.
A second constraint concerns what a submitted form represents. A form submission collects values. It does not by itself confirm that verification, approval, database writes, or synchronization have occurred, so a submitted state is not an executed state.
A third constraint concerns retrieval and authorization. A similarity score is not a category, entity, or permission filter, and retrieval is not authorization. A retrieved replenishment request does not authorize shipment. The approval and shipment steps require separate downstream implementation.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting value | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | Hypothetical starting value 3 | Used to check whether a follow-up on the replenishment request references earlier text; compare against 1 to see whether the reference is lost |
| Reply limit | Hypothetical starting value 800 | Used to check whether the replenishment explanation is truncated; compare against 400 for completeness |
| Temperature | Hypothetical low starting value | Store service and internal training are rule-clear scenarios; compare against a higher value for wording stability |
| Reply format | Hypothetical default starting value | Ordinary question and answer keeps the default; change to json_schema only when a downstream node reads a fixed structure, and fill in the corresponding format requirement |
| Multimodal recognition | Check against model capability | Image recognition covers screenshots and table images; the option does not appear when the model does not support it |
| Thinking configuration | Check against model capability | Simple replenishment question and answer selects no thinking; complex coordination scenarios can raise thinking strength |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieved replenishment request as an authorization basis. Retrieval returns material only; approval and shipment need downstream implementation, and a similarity score does not constitute permission.
- Treating an old quantity in the conversation history as current stock. Memory turns bring in conversation content, and that content must be checked separately against the inventory turnover table field; an old value does not overwrite a new one.
- Treating a form submission as a completed replenishment. A form collects values only; business verification, database writes, and synchronization need their own downstream implementation, and a submitted state is not an executed state.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical replenishment request and inventory turnover table text above, and compare the draft sentence "Model A stock is sufficient, no replenishment needed" against the same model field in both materials. When the draft sentence is not supported, the output should preserve the evidence gap and should not be written as a negative conclusion.
- Input a series of follow-up questions on the same replenishment request, and compare answers with memory turns set to 3 and to 1. If the setting of 3 correctly references the earlier model and quantity, the context is being carried in; if the setting of 1 loses the reference, that is an observable phenomenon.
- Input a query that contains no replenishment request, and observe the retrieval return. If an empty result list is returned, use the paper input
[]to check the downstream handling design; do not claim the query necessarily returns empty, and do not guarantee a first hit.