What the documents look like
In multi-warehouse allocation, the warehouse routing decision happens at the order stage and determines which warehouse ships an order. The working materials come from WMS, OMS, ERP inventory and platform inventory interfaces, and the day-to-day documents include allocation rules, inventory synchronization tables, transfer orders and stockout warnings. For store service and internal training, multi-turn prompts have to explain the sellable quantity of an order or SKU, the shipping-warehouse priority and the transfer progress, and training material has to make the question, the follow-up and the checking steps explicit. These records update by day or by hour, so any inventory figure quoted in a conversation carries a time reference, and training material states the cut-off point.
A second feature matters for prompt design. The allocation rule, the inventory synchronization table and the transfer order are separate documents with separate status fields. A prompt that merges them invites the model to fill gaps with plausible business facts. The prompt therefore states the document scope, the answering task and the handling of missing evidence, and it does not permit the model to write business facts that the material does not contain.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
The prompt states the scope of the material, the answering task and the treatment of absent evidence. It does not allow the model to supply business facts. For history, the actual context carried into the request is checked, and a new session is distinguished from a continued session. Where a knowledge base needs continuous dialogue, the reference resolution and the question expansion are checked, and short questions are not assumed to qualify. The model and the length settings are checked against the context and reply configuration the model supports, and long documents combined with follow-up questions are tested. The reply format follows the downstream consumer; when json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement is filled in and the returned structure is verified.
Hypothetical drill sample. The store training material supplied for checking reads in three sentences: "The allocation rule table, version 2025-03-01, states that orders in the East China region ship first from the Shanghai warehouse. The inventory synchronization table shows SKU-A sellable at the Shanghai warehouse: 12 units, updated 2025-03-01 09:00. Transfer order DB-0301 has status 'submitted' and has not been approved." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "SKU-A is sellable at the Shanghai warehouse at 12 units, transfer order DB-0301 is approved, and the store may place the order." The checking points: the draft sentence writes "approved" where the source says "submitted", and it treats the sellable figure as an order permission. The correct wording keeps the source status and states that the order permission requires separate business confirmation.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below is tied to this sample and lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and the primary task.
| Configuration item | Value or check | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model whose supported context length covers the material | The sample has three sentences plus a follow-up, so context length matters |
| Memory rounds | For this hypothetical trial, the starting point is to retain a small number of history rounds | Store follow-ups often span two or three turns; the starting point is used to compare what context is carried in |
| Reply limit | For this hypothetical trial, the starting point is a length that holds a complete explanation | Compared against truncation; not an official default |
| Temperature | For this hypothetical trial, the starting point is low | Training wording needs stability, compared against a more divergent reply |
| Reply format | Default for ordinary question and answer; select json_schema and fill in the format requirement when a fixed structure is needed | The sample is a text check, so the default applies |
| Hide AI output | Enable when an intermediate result is passed to a later node | The sample does not involve this; keep it off |
The memory-round, reply-limit and temperature values above are hypothetical starting points chosen for this trial. They are not official defaults, and each is compared against the observable behaviour it is meant to change.
Three common errors
- Writing a transfer order as "approved" when the material says "submitted". The input is the source sentence "status 'submitted'"; the comparison is the draft sentence "approved"; the observable result is that the two status values differ, and the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Treating the sellable figure of 12 units as an order permission. The input is the inventory synchronization table figure with its update time; the comparison is the draft sentence "the store may place the order"; the observable result is that the material does not state the permitting party or the authorization boundary, so the conclusion remains to be verified.
- Treating retrieval results as a permission or entity filter. The input is one knowledge base query; the comparison is the returned entries against the range the store may access; the observable result is that a similarity score does not perform permission filtering, and the identifier has to be checked separately.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three hypothetical material sentences and the draft sentence; compare the draft sentence status field against the source "submitted"; the observable result is that a draft sentence reading "approved" is judged unsupported and has to keep the source status.
- Input the same material and the follow-up "how much can the Shanghai warehouse still ship"; compare the figure and the time reference in the reply; the observable result is that a reply without "as of 2025-03-01 09:00" is judged to be missing the time reference.
- Input an explicit paper empty result
[]together with a downstream handover request; compare how the downstream design handles the empty reference; the observable result is that a downstream that outputs a business conclusion directly is judged to have a handover error. No claim is made that a fictional rule query returns[].
Across all three checks, the comparison holds the same subject, the same period and the same field. Where the material does not state a value, the finding is unsupported or to be verified, not contradicted. A pending request is not an approval, and an offered option is not an execution. Retrieval is not authorization, and a similarity score is not a permission or entity filter.