What the documents look like
Livestream violation appeals respond to penalties that have already been issued, so the work centers on reconstructing an evidence chain. The primary materials come from the platform violation center, livestream replays, customer service records, and the product qualification library. These materials update irregularly, and each violation triggers one handling cycle. The documents handled day to day include violation notices, livestream recordings, product qualifications, and appeal statements. In the store service and internal training setting, multi-turn dialogue lets operations staff progressively fill in clip location, evidence supplementation, and appeal reasoning. The update frequency does not affect the functions on this page and is not expanded here.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue needs to place the scope of the violation notice, recording, qualification, and appeal statement into the prompt, and preserve gaps when evidence is missing. History records need checking against the context actually carried in, distinguishing a new session from a continued session. Question optimization is checked for referent resolution only in knowledge-base continuous-dialogue scenarios. Model and length require checking the context and reply settings. Reply format is chosen according to downstream handling; 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 platform violation notice stating that "during the livestream on March 12, 2025, from minute 37 to minute 42, product qualification was not displayed." The corresponding segment of the livestream replay shows the host holding a paper document during that period, and the text in the frame cannot be identified. The product qualification library entry for that product has the status "uploaded, pending review." The proposed sentence is: "The qualification material was displayed during the violation period, and the appeal requests that the penalty be revoked." The request to be judged is: operations staff confirm whether the material displayed during that period is the same document as the pending-review entry in the qualification library.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason for selection and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | 3 | Appeal dialogue usually needs to look back several turns for clip location; compared with 1 turn to check whether context is lost |
| Temperature | Low | Appeal reasoning needs to restate the notice and recording facts stably; compared with the default value to check wording fluctuation |
| Reply cap | On, set to medium length | The appeal statement needs to be complete without being lengthy; compared with leaving it off to check truncation |
| Reply format | Default | This page has no downstream need to read a fixed structure; compared with json_schema to check whether it is necessary |
| Multimodal recognition | Decided by model capability | Recording screenshots require the model to support image input; compared with plain-text input to check recognition results |
| Hide AI thinking | On | Operations staff see only the final appeal draft; compared with off to check visibility of intermediate process |
Three common errors
- Writing "uploaded, pending review" as "qualification approved." The input is the qualification library entry status field, the comparison object is the period stated in the notice against the qualification review status, and the observable result is whether the proposed sentence rewrites pending review as approved.
- Treating the unidentifiable paper document in the replay as the same file as the qualification library entry. The input is the recording segment and the qualification library entry, the comparison object is the legibility of the text in the frame against the entry content, and the observable result is whether the proposed sentence claims the two are the same document.
- Treating "the appeal requests that the penalty be revoked" as already granted. The input is the proposed sentence and the platform notice, the comparison object is the appeal submission status against the penalty status, and the observable result is whether the draft writes the request as an outcome.
How to verify the setup
- Input the violation notice text, recording segment description, and qualification library status from the hypothetical sample, compare whether the proposed sentence writes "pending review" as "approved," and the observable result is that the draft retains the wording "pending review" and does not contain "approved."
- Input the recording segment and qualification library entry from the hypothetical sample, compare whether the proposed sentence claims the two are the same document, and the observable result is that the draft states "the text in the frame cannot be identified; whether it is the same document remains to be verified."
- Input the proposed sentence and platform notice from the hypothetical sample, compare whether the draft writes "appeal request" as "penalty revoked," and the observable result is that the draft retains the wording "requests revocation" and does not contain "revoked."