What the documents look like
Fresh fruit store procurement depends on wholesale market conditions and grade-based acceptance. The working documents are purchase orders, acceptance sheets, pesticide-residue test reports, and loss records. These materials update daily or per batch, so a training answer that was correct for one delivery may not describe the next one.
In store service and internal training, multi-turn prompts carry a specific obligation: state the scope of the source material, state the answering task, and state how missing evidence is handled. The model must not fill in business facts that the documents do not contain. When a handover treats a retrieval result or a completed form as completed authorization, staff can act on a status that no document supports.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue must separate a new session from a continued session. The context actually carried into the answer needs checking against the input that was sent. Question optimization applies when a knowledge base runs continuous dialogue; reference resolution and question expansion are verified there, and short questions are not automatically covered.
Model and length settings need to match the context window and the reply limit, tested with long documents combined with follow-up questions. Reply format follows what the downstream step consumes. When json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement is filled in and the returned structure is checked against it.
A paper exercise sample is provided here for checking. The source material for verification reads: "Purchase order CG-2026-0412 for this batch of Red Fuji apples, supplier East China Fruit, quantity 200 boxes, acceptance status pending acceptance; pesticide-residue test report NC-2026-0412 conclusion qualified; loss record LD-2026-0412 records 3 boxes lost that day." A draft sentence awaiting judgment reads: "This batch of Red Fuji apples has completed acceptance and can be put on the shelf for sale." The draft sentence disagrees with the acceptance status field in the source, which states pending acceptance.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting on this page | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Memory rounds | Hypothetical trial starting value 3 rounds, because training Q&A needs to reference recent purchase-order discussion | Compare with the default value; observe whether a long conversation carries in earlier rounds |
| Reply limit | Hypothetical trial starting value 800, because training explanations need to be complete without being lengthy | Compare with the default value; observe whether the reply is truncated |
| Temperature | Hypothetical trial starting value 0.3, because rule-based acceptance Q&A needs stability | Compare with the default value; observe whether answers diverge |
| Reply format | Ordinary training Q&A keeps the default; when a downstream step reads the output, select json_schema and fill in the format requirement | Check whether the returned structure matches the filled requirement |
| Multimodal recognition | Enabled only when the model supports it and images need to be read | Check the model capability against the options shown in the dialog |
These starting values are hypothetical trial points for this page. They are not official defaults. Each is compared against the default value shown for that setting, and the observed difference is recorded.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval result or a completed form as completed authorization. Input is the source material above with acceptance status pending acceptance. Comparison is against the acceptance status field. The draft sentence "has completed acceptance" does not match the pending-acceptance value in the source.
- Treating a pending review as missing operating permission. Input is an authorization field not stated in the material. Comparison is whether an explicit authorization record exists. When the material does not state it, the result is recorded as an evidence gap.
- Treating a quote validity period as a supply period. Input is a supply-period field not stated in the material. Comparison is whether an explicit period record exists. When the material does not state it, the result is recorded as an evidence gap.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source material above and the draft sentence. Compare the acceptance status field. If the draft sentence disagrees with the pending-acceptance value in the source, the draft sentence is judged unsupported by the material. This is an expected outcome, not a completed test.
- Input the authorization field that the material does not state. Compare whether an explicit authorization record exists. If no record exists, the outcome is an evidence gap. The check does not infer permission from a pending review.
- Input the supply-period field that the material does not state. Compare whether an explicit period record exists. If no record exists, the outcome is an evidence gap. A quote validity period does not establish a supply period.
A retrieval result does not carry authorization. A relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter, and similarity settings do not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. When an empty result needs a downstream check, a paper input of [] can be used to inspect the downstream design; this does not claim that a rule-based retrieval returns []. Libraries using different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers are checked first and non-matching libraries are excluded, with the actual observation recorded.