What the documents look like
Brand dealer ordering events run on a quarterly or annual cadence. The store-service and internal-training step concentrates on four document types: the ordering handbook, the ordering contract, the sample list and the credit approval. Channel departments and merchandise planning teams explain new-product policy to attending dealers, collect order quantities and check credit lines. Errors here produce under-ordering, inventory disputes and collection risk. These documents differ in field set, status and validity scope, so multi-turn prompts must keep answers tied to the material supplied in that session and leave gaps open when evidence is absent.
Two or three facts shape this task directly. First, a credit approval carries a status such as pending, and that status does not equal an executed approval. Second, a sample list can state an explicit validity scope, for example that certain items stay outside the ordering range. Third, retrieval returns a similarity score that describes recall relevance only; it is not an entity filter and not a permission filter, and retrieval does not create authorization. The ordering handbook, ordering contract, sample list and credit approval each need their own field-level comparison before any draft sentence is accepted.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue depends on chatId to load a session from the database and uses the last item in the messages array as the user question; remaining messages are ignored. When chatId is not passed, context is built entirely from the supplied messages. Memory turns control how many prior chat turns the answer may reference. A small value may fail to use earlier context; a large value adds content, raises consumption and can slow the response. A low reply cap truncates output; a high cap raises consumption. A low temperature suits rule-bound question answering. Topp overlaps with temperature, and the two are not usually adjusted together. Reply format changes only when a downstream flow needs a fixed structure; selecting jsonschema also requires filling in the corresponding format requirement. A similarity score in retrieval results indicates recall relevance only and does not establish permission or entity isolation.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a brand channel department prepared a short paper record before quarterly ordering-event training. The source text reads: "This season's ordering handbook is numbered A-07 and applies to on-site explanation at the 2026 spring ordering event. The three coats listed in sample list S-12 are for on-site display only and fall outside this ordering range. The credit approval status for dealer D-33 is pending review." A separate draft sentence to be judged reads: "D-33 has completed credit approval and can confirm the ordering amount on site." The comparison object is the draft sentence against the source text; the compared field is credit approval status; the expected observation is that the draft turns pending review into completed, which the material does not support.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model that the configuration dialog shows as supporting the required context length | Compare against the long-text volume of the ordering handbook and sample list to confirm the maximum context is sufficient |
| Memory turns | Start with a small number of turns | Training Q&A needs only one or two prior turns for references; compare against the default and adjust by observed follow-up behavior |
| Reply cap | Start at a value that can hold one policy paragraph | Compare against the length of handbook entries and watch for truncation |
| Temperature | Start at a low value | Rule-bound policy Q&A needs stable output; compare wording fluctuation against a higher value |
| Reply format | Keep the default | Change to json_schema and fill the format requirement only when a downstream node must read a fixed structure |
| Multimodal recognition | Decide whether to enable image recognition based on model capability | If the sample list contains images, the model must support image input; documents still need file parsing into text |
Three common errors
- Treating pending review as approved. The draft sentence states that D-33 has completed credit approval, while the source text gives the status as pending review. Same subject, same field, different value: the draft is unsupported.
- Treating display samples as orderable. Sample list S-12 already states that the three coats fall outside this ordering range. If an answer places them in the orderable list, it exceeds the material's validity scope.
- Treating a similarity score as a permission filter. The returned score reflects recall relevance only. It does not indicate that a dealer is entitled to view or confirm a credit line; permission still requires business-side verification.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source sentences and the draft sentence above, compare the draft's credit status against the source text's "pending review," and expect the check to identify the draft as unsupported while preserving the evidence gap. Do not supply a fabricated approval conclusion.
- Input the S-12 sample list text and a question asking whether the three coats can be ordered, compare whether the answer cites "fall outside this ordering range," and expect the answer not to place them in the orderable range.
- Input an unrelated query, observe the returned entries and scores, and compare whether returned items belong to the material supplied in this session. Record the actual observation. If the result is empty, use an explicit paper input of
[]to check the downstream handling design; do not claim that retrieval necessarily returns an empty result.
These checks test the named task: drafting and judging copy against supplied source wording and its stated limits. They do not test identity certification, report analysis or any other task. A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Where the source text does not state a field, the value remains unknown.