What the documents look like
Parcel handoff sits at the point where a package leaves the warehouse, and the carrier scan is what assigns responsibility at that moment. For multi-turn prompts, this timing matters because the conversation has to stay anchored to one batch or one day rather than drifting across unrelated shipments. The working materials are electronic waybills, handoff lists, pickup scan records, and exception-item registers. Data arrives from the courier system, WMS dispatch, GB/T courier service standards, and carrier statements. In store-service and internal-training use, the transcript becomes review material, so prompts need to state the document scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence instead of letting the model supply business facts.
A hypothetical drill sample is used throughout this page. The material text is: "On 13 October 2024, a branch handoff list numbered J-1013 covered 20 parcels; the pickup scan record shows 18 parcels scanned; the exception register lists 2 items pending verification." The draft sentence under review is: "All 20 parcels in this batch have completed pickup scanning." The pending request is: "Based on the material above, answer whether this batch has completed pickup scanning in full."
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue depends on memory rounds to carry earlier text forward, so a history check has to separate a new session from a continued one. Knowledge-base continuous conversation needs coreference resolution and question expansion checked; short questions are not all suitable for that treatment. Model context and reply limits are checked against the documented settings, and long-document plus follow-up combinations need testing. Reply format follows downstream needs; selecting json_schema requires filling in the format requirement and verifying the returned structure. Retrieval and similarity serve content matching only and do not perform permission or entity isolation. The same-vector-model requirement for a retrieval library stays inside that library and does not extend to external systems. Interaction-node waiting and record status are read as documented; automatic judgment or snapshot guarantees are not assumed.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and the main task, using the hypothetical sample as the reference point.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | Check method and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Memory rounds | Keep a small number of history rounds | The document notes customer-service use typically keeps few; compare against the single-batch check in the sample |
| Reply limit | Do not set an excessively low value | Avoid early truncation; compare against the complete-answer need in the sample |
| Temperature | Lower | The document advises lower values for rule-clear scenarios; compare against stable answering |
| Reply format | Default | The sample has no fixed-structure downstream need; compare against later node reading requirements |
| Multimodal recognition | Off | The sample is text material; compare against displayed model capability |
| Hide AI output | Off | Training needs the answer visible; compare against user-visibility need |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval similarity as a permission filter, so that a low-scoring result being excluded is read as a lack of access. The input is the hypothetical sample material and the user question; compare the retrieved content against the material text; observe whether business facts outside the material appear.
- Treating an interaction-node waiting state as submitted or approved. The input is the hypothetical draft sentence; compare the returned interaction configuration against the business state; observe whether waiting is misread as completion.
- Treating history carried in by memory rounds as this batch's material. The input is the hypothetical single-batch material; compare the carried context against the material text; observe whether another batch's information is mixed in.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample material text and the draft sentence; compare the draft sentence "All 20 parcels in this batch have completed pickup scanning" against the material's "18 parcels scanned" and "2 items pending verification"; observe whether the answer states that the material does not support full completion. The condition is met when the answer preserves the evidence gap.
- Input the hypothetical pending request; compare the answer content against the material scope; observe whether entities or states outside the material appear. The condition is met when the answer relies only on the material text.
- Input an empty-result paper input []; compare the downstream handling design; observe whether the empty result is processed as such. The condition is met when no claim is made that a fabricated-rule retrieval necessarily returns empty.