What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream commerce happens before a broadcast goes live. The question under review is whether a product can be sold and whether it can be shown on camera in a compliant way. In the store-service and internal-training setting, the working materials are sample evaluation forms, quality inspection reports, supplier qualification files, and prohibited-item lists. These materials are updated weekly and per product.
The update cadence matters here only because it shapes what a prompt may treat as current. A prompt that cites a report conclusion, a qualification validity period, or a prohibited-item scope must draw those facts from the source text. When the source does not state a fact, the prompt can only mark it as pending verification. It cannot fill the gap with an assumption.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue separates a new session from a continued session. When a non-empty chatId is passed, the system retrieves the session from the database and uses the last item in the messages array as the user question, ignoring the remaining messages. When chatId is not passed, the context is built entirely from the supplied messages. The prompt text needs to state the document scope, the answering task, and the handling of missing evidence. Question optimization relies on the most recent six dialogue turns as context. Model context length, reply ceiling, and reply format come from the AI configuration; selecting json_schema requires filling in the corresponding format requirement. A relevance score from retrieval does not carry permission or entity-isolation duties.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source text reads "Sample evaluation form: number YP-0417, product is a portable juicer cup, evaluation status is pending review, evaluator has not signed. Quality inspection report: report number J-2309, conclusion is that the product meets the platform listing requirement, issue date 2025-03-12, covered model ZB-100. Prohibited-item list: the current version does not include the portable juicer cup." The draft sentence to be judged is "This juicer cup has passed inspection and completed sample selection, so broadcast training can be scheduled." That sentence turns a pending-review status into a completed selection, which conflicts with the evaluation form text.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting relevant to this page | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Choose a model whose maximum context fits the material length | Compare the model information's maximum context and tool-calling capability against the sample materials |
| Memory turns | Hypothetical trial starting point of 6 turns | Compare against the recent-six-turn context need, and observe whether earlier content is pulled in |
| Reply ceiling | Hypothetical trial starting point sized to cover a report-conclusion summary | Compare against the draft sentence length and observe whether truncation occurs |
| Temperature | Hypothetical trial starting point set low | Compare against the stability expected for customer service and rule-bound scenarios |
| Reply format | Keep default for ordinary Q&A; select json_schema and fill the format requirement when a fixed structure is needed | Inspect whether the returned structure matches the filled requirement |
| Multimodal recognition | Enable only when the model supports it and the input contains image, audio, or video | Check model capability against input type; unsupported types are not sent |
Three common errors
- Treating a "pending review" evaluation status as completed sample selection. Input is the source text above and the draft sentence. Compare whether the draft sentence matches the evaluation status field. The observable result is that the draft sentence conflicts with the source text and must be rewritten as a pending-review statement.
- Extending the quality inspection report's covered model ZB-100 to all models. Input is the report text and the draft sentence. Compare the report's coverage scope against the object the draft sentence points to. The observable result is that the draft sentence exceeds the report's valid scope.
- Reading the prohibited-item list's current version not including the product as permanent sellability. Input is the list text and the draft sentence. Compare the list version state against the draft sentence's conclusion. The observable result is that the list state cannot support a permanent-sellability conclusion.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source text above and the draft sentence. Compare whether the draft sentence contains "has passed inspection and completed sample selection." The observable result is that the phrase does not match the evaluation status, so the check fails.
- Input the source text and the "covered model ZB-100" field. Compare the model range the draft sentence points to. The observable result is that the check fails when the draft sentence exceeds the report's covered range.
- Input the prohibited-item list text and the draft sentence. Compare the list version state. The observable result is that the list not including the item cannot support permanent sellability, so the check fails. If retrieval returns an empty result, a paper input of an empty list can be used to check the downstream handling design, without claiming that a fictional rule search will return empty.
This page addresses only livestream sample inspection, store service and internal training, and multi-turn prompts. When operations hand over materials, actions, or requests, the authorization state at each point must be recorded. Retrieval and forms are not authorization to execute.