What the documents look like
Category access review happens before listing or onboarding. The objects under review are the operating entity's qualifications and the chain of authorization. Working materials include the business license, trademark registration certificate, brand authorization chain, and industry permits. In store service and internal training, multi-turn dialogue carries qualification collection progress, correction explanations, and category matching positions. These materials update on an irregular schedule and are collected again for each onboarding batch, so a dialogue's status description must bind to a specific material and a specific onboarding batch. A conclusion from an earlier batch does not carry forward. The prompt must state the document scope, the answering task, and how missing evidence is handled. The model does not fill in business facts that are absent.
Two features of this category shape the task. Authorization chains take the longest to assemble, so a conversation often spans several turns while a store submits pieces of the chain. Category matching decides whether a qualification can support a specific listing, which means a reply that overstates the scope of an authorization can send a store toward a rejected application. Both effects make the boundary between collected material, verified material, and approved material the central thing a training dialogue must keep straight.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue carries prior history into the request. The implementation must verify which context is actually included and distinguish a new session from a continued session. When a knowledge base supports continuous conversation, verify that references are resolved and questions expanded; short questions do not automatically qualify for that treatment. The context length and reply limit that a model supports must be checked against the capability shown in the configuration dialog, and long documents combined with follow-up questions need separate testing. Reply format follows what the downstream step consumes; selecting json_schema requires filling in the corresponding format requirement and validating the returned structure. A relevance score from retrieval does not perform permission or entity isolation, and retrieval by itself does not constitute authorization. A form collects values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
Hypothetical drill sample. A store intends to apply for a category that requires a brand authorization chain. The source text supplied for review reads: "Authorizing party A and store B signed a brand authorization letter on 1 March 2026, valid until 28 February 2027, with the authorized scope limited to offline store sales in the East China region." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "Store B has obtained nationwide authorization for the brand and may submit a full-category onboarding application." The points to judge: the parties are A and B, the object is the brand authorization letter, the status is signed, the effective scope is offline stores in East China, and the term runs to 28 February 2027. The draft sentence expands the region and channel and treats the authorization letter as equivalent to full-category onboarding eligibility. That position is not supported by the source text.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below stays with the sample above and lists only settings the official documents describe or implementation checks tied to this task.
| Configuration item | Value or check method | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Selected in the AI configuration dialog; check maximum context and multimodal capability | Must hold the full authorization letter plus follow-up questions |
| Memory turns | Start from the default; this hypothetical drill uses a small number of turns as its starting point | Retains the prior text on authorized scope and term |
| Reply limit | Limits reply length as needed; avoid truncating a correction explanation | Correction explanations need to stay complete |
| Temperature | Lower values suit scenarios with clear rules | Qualification positions need stable answers |
| Reply format | Default for ordinary question and answer; select json_schema with a format requirement when a fixed structure is needed | Used when a downstream node reads fields |
| Hide AI output | Enabled as needed so a later node can rewrite the result | Internal organized results are not shown directly |
Three common errors
- Treating a signed authorization letter as full-category onboarding eligibility. Input is the sample source text and the draft sentence; compare the authorized scope field; the draft sentence exceeds the East China region and the offline channel, so it is judged unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval result as the basis for authorization. Input is an authorization letter fragment returned by the knowledge base; compare it with an approval record; a retrieval hit does not produce an approval status.
- Treating a form awaiting review as a submitted application. Input is the filled form values; compare whether a submission and acceptance record exists; when no submission action is recorded, the status remains to be verified.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence; compare the authorized scope and term fields. The condition is met only when the draft sentence agrees with the source text; otherwise record it as exceeding scope.
- Input an empty-result continuation case, where retrieval returns
[]; check whether the downstream node follows its empty-result branch. Do not assume that a fabricated rule necessarily returns an empty result. - Input a long-document conversation with a follow-up question; compare the included context against the reply limit. The condition is met when the reply is not truncated and its references agree with the source text.