What the documents look like
Wholesale market stall trading is fragmented. It relies on on-site bargaining and consignment shipping, and the working papers are purchase sheets, handwritten sales slips, stall lease contracts and payment receipts. In store service and internal training, a multi-turn conversation has to stay anchored to those papers: a stall owner asks about the receipt status of one payment, or a buyer follows up on the shipping arrangement recorded on a handwritten sales slip. The brief gives a daily and per-order update frequency, and this page does not derive batch synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanisms from it.
Two consequences matter here. First, the material often exists as paper or images, so any image handling in the dialogue depends on the model itself supporting multimodal input, while ordinary document files still need file parsing to become text. Second, bargaining and shipping arrangements stay verbal or handwritten, so a question in the conversation cannot be treated as a confirmed authorization or a completed business action.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue depends on history being carried in. When chatId is supplied, the system takes the session from the database and uses the last item of the messages array as the user question, ignoring the remaining messages. When chatId is not supplied, the context is built entirely from the submitted messages. In store service and internal training, a trainer comparing the input difference between a new session and a continued session is a manual verification action.
A prompt needs to state the material scope, the answering task and how to handle missing evidence. For stall trading this means the prompt stays inside the range of purchase sheets, handwritten sales slips, stall lease contracts and payment receipts, and records a gap when evidence is missing.
Hypothetical paper exercise
Material text for verification (hypothetical, used only for the checks on this page):
Material one: handwritten sales slip dated 12 March 2025, stall A sold 300 jin of potatoes to buyer B at 1.2 yuan per jin, total 360 yuan, remark "consignment, freight collect".
Material two: payment receipt dated 14 March 2025, stall A received a transfer of 360 yuan from buyer B, receipt number A-0314, payee signature "Li".
Material three: stall lease contract dated 10 March 2025, stall A rents stall 12 in zone C of the market, lease term 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026, monthly rent 2000 yuan.
Draft sentence to be assessed: "Buyer B settled all payments in full on 14 March 2025, and the stall lease contract between stall A and zone C of the market has taken effect."
Basis for assessment: material two shows 360 yuan received on 14 March, matching the amount in material one, which supports "this payment has been made". The lease term in material three starts on 1 April 2025, so on 14 March the term had not begun, and the draft sentence's claim that the contract "has taken effect" is unsupported. The draft sentence merges two different facts and needs to be separated for verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below is tied to the sample above and lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and the primary task.
| Configuration item | Use on this page | Verification method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model that supports the required context length and multimodal capability | Check the maximum context and multimodal capability information shown under the model |
| Memory turns | Controls how many earlier dialogue turns are carried in | For this hypothetical exercise the starting value is 3 turns, because the sample involves three materials and needs comparison across turns; compare with the default value and observe whether replies reference earlier turns |
| Temperature | Store service and internal training is a rule-defined scenario | For this hypothetical exercise the starting value is set low; compare with the default value and observe answer stability |
| Response format | Select json_schema and fill in the format requirement when a downstream step reads a fixed structure | Check whether the returned structure matches the filled format requirement |
| Multimodal recognition | Enable image recognition when material exists as images | Confirm the model supports image recognition, and that media links are processed only when the user question is under 500 characters and at most 4 media links are handled at one time |
| Hidden AI output | Enable when AI organizes an internal result and a later node rewrites it | Confirm the output is passed to later nodes through the AI reply |
The configuration dialog shows only items available for the current model. When a model does not support multimodal recognition, that option is not offered; when a model does not support thinking configuration, the corresponding option is not shown. This page does not specify default values, limits or global switches.
Three common errors
- Treating a question as authorization or execution. In the sample, material two shows 360 yuan received, while the draft sentence claims "settled all payments in full"; if other payments exist outside the listed materials, that conclusion is unsupported. Compare whether the amount in material two and the amount in material one cover the same transaction, and observe whether other receivables exist.
- Merging different facts into one judgment. In the sample, payment for goods and the effectiveness of the stall lease contract are two different facts. The lease term in material three starts on 1 April 2025, and on 14 March the term had not begun. Compare the receipt date and the lease start date separately, and observe whether the draft sentence mixes them into a single status.
- Treating retrieval results as a permission basis. Material retrieved during a multi-turn dialogue does not constitute operational authorization. Compare the material cited in the dialogue with the authorization boundary of the requested operation, and observe whether any action such as signing or collecting payment is carried out on the grounds that a contract was retrieved.
How to verify the setup
- Input the text of materials one, two and three from the hypothetical sample together with the draft sentence, and compare whether "settled all payments in full" in the draft sentence corresponds to the same transaction as the receipt amount in material two and the sales amount in material one. If the amounts match and no other receivable record exists, that part is supported; if other receivable records exist, that part is unsupported.
- Input the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample and compare "the stall lease contract has taken effect" with the lease start date of 1 April 2025 in material three. If the current date is before the lease start date, the conclusion is unsupported; if it is after the lease start date, the contract still needs to be checked for any stated effectiveness condition.
- Input a dialogue that retrieves material three and then requests "confirm that the stall lease contract has taken effect and execute the renewal", and compare the retrieval result with the authorization boundary of the requested operation. Retrieving a contract does not constitute authorization to execute a renewal; the request remains pending verification and the source of authorization needs to be confirmed separately.