What the documents look like
Complaints and official replies in this category are directed at a platform complaint center or a regulatory authority, not at an after-sales repair or reshipment process. The working materials are complaint tickets, regulatory inquiry letters, order evidence, and rectification reports. Formal evidence and rectification wording are required, and errors can lead to administrative investigation, platform penalties, and brand exposure. Materials update irregularly, on a per-case basis. In store service and internal training, customer service supervisors, legal compliance staff, and store managers use multi-turn dialogue to reconstruct the transaction process, prepare an evidence package, and draft a rectification reply. At the multi-turn prompts step, the practical constraints are that prompts organize only the materials already supplied, that a missing piece of evidence is recorded as a gap, that history determines which context is carried in, and that the reply format matches how the next step consumes the output.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
The prompt states the material scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence, so the model does not write in business facts that were never provided. History settings are checked against the context actually carried in, and the input difference between a new session and a continued session is distinguished. Question optimization is checked for reference resolution and question expansion only when continuous knowledge-base dialogue is required. Model and length settings are checked against the context and reply settings the model supports, and long documents are tested together with follow-up questions. Reply format is chosen according to the downstream consumer; when json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement is filled in and the returned structure is verified.
Hypothetical drill sample: a store receives a regulatory inquiry letter whose text is: "Please explain why order A-2024-0315, placed on 15 March 2024, had a refund requested on 18 March 2024, and attach the refund handling record." The store's available materials are: an order system screenshot showing the order time of 15 March and the refund request time of 18 March; and a customer service chat record in which the user states "the goods received do not match the description." A draft sentence reads: "This order was refunded for the user's personal reasons and has been fully handled." The question to determine is whether this draft sentence is consistent with the materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Hypothetical starting point and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt | State material scope, answering task, and missing-evidence handling | Starting point: the prompt contains "rely only on the attached ticket and chat record"; compare with the sample text to see whether the refund reason is covered |
| Memory turns | Control how many prior dialogue turns are carried in | Starting point: keep a small number of turns, on the reasoning that customer-service applications usually need only a few; compare with the context actually carried into a continued session |
| Reply cap | Limit the length of a single reply | Starting point: raise it according to the length a rectification reply needs; compare with whether the output is truncated |
| Temperature | Control how stable the reply is | Starting point: keep it low, on the reasoning that this is a rule-bound customer-service setting; compare repeated outputs for the same input |
| Reply format | Choose according to the downstream consumer | Starting point: plain text; if the downstream step must read a fixed structure, select json_schema and fill in the format requirement |
| Multimodal recognition | Read image content when the model supports it | Starting point: enable image recognition for the order screenshot; compare with the capability shown for the model |
Three common errors
- The prompt does not state how missing evidence is handled. In the sample, the draft sentence says "for the user's personal reasons," while the materials only show the user stating "the goods received do not match the description." Check: input the prompt and the sample text, compare whether the draft sentence introduces a reason the materials do not record, and observe whether unsupported wording appears.
- History carries in the wrong context. A continued session may carry in content from a different order in the previous turn. Check: input a new-session request and a continued-session request, compare the historyPreview actually carried in, and observe whether an unrelated order is mixed in.
- The reply format does not match the downstream consumer. Plain text is still used when the downstream step must read fixed fields. Check: input the json_schema format requirement, compare whether the returned structure contains the corresponding fields, and observe whether parsing succeeds.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample text and the draft sentence, and compare whether the draft sentence is consistent with the materials. Expected: the draft sentence should state that the refund reason is not recorded in the materials, preserve the evidence gap, and not write "personal reasons."
- Input a new-session request and a continued-session request, and compare the context carried in. Expected: the new session carries no history, and the continued session carries in only records related to this order.
- Input an empty result
[]together with the downstream consumer design, and compare whether the downstream step can handle the no-reference case. Expected: the downstream step clearly shows that there is no reference and does not fabricate a rule retrieval result.
Retrieval and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; the identifier is checked first and non-matching libraries are excluded. Interaction waiting, record status, and hidden dialogue boxes are interpreted according to the documents, and no control switch or automatic judgment is invented. A pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission; signature, cooperation reached, and contract effectiveness are three different facts. Missing evidence remains missing.