What the documents look like
Short-video affiliate distribution relies on long-term content exposure and product-link conversion, without live explanation. Store service and internal training conversations therefore become reference material for later review. The documents handled day to day include short-video scripts, affiliate product lists, commission plans, and violation feedback. These materials correspond to content, product, settlement, and compliance facts respectively. When they are mixed into a single conversation, a model can combine information from different sources into one statement. When content operators, creator BD staff, and product distribution specialists follow up in the same session, the product, commission ratio, and violation reason mentioned earlier need to be carried forward accurately. Otherwise the training example passes an incorrect wording to the store. Data updates occur daily and weekly.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Multi-turn dialogue links history, question optimization, model length, and reply format. Memory rounds control how many earlier chat rounds the AI may reference at most. Customer service and knowledge-base question-answering applications usually keep a small number of history rounds. The reply limit controls the maximum length of one answer. A lower temperature produces more stable answers and suits training scenarios with clear rules. The reply format is changed only when a downstream flow needs to read a fixed structure; selecting json_schema also requires filling in the corresponding format requirement. A retrieval relevance score indicates similarity only and does not carry permission or entity-isolation duties. Retrieval itself does not constitute authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a store training lead prepares a verification material. The source text reads: "Affiliate product list row 12: a certain summer sun-protection garment, commission ratio 18%, status listed. Violation feedback record: the product title contains the character 'most'; the platform requires modification within 7 days; current status pending modification." The proposed judgment sentence reads: "The sun-protection garment has a commission ratio of 18%, and the title violation has been handled and completed." This proposed sentence writes the pending-modification status as completed, which is a difference requiring verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Purpose on this page | Verification method |
|---|---|---|
| Memory rounds | Carry forward earlier product and commission information | Hypothetical starting value 4 rounds, because training follow-ups usually do not exceed 3 rounds; compare with 2 rounds to observe whether earlier context is lost |
| Reply limit | Limit training answer length | Hypothetical starting value 500; compare with 800 to observe truncation |
| Temperature | Stabilize restatement of list fields | Hypothetical starting value 0.2; compare with 0.7 to observe wording variation |
| Reply format | Downstream node reads fields | When json_schema is selected, fill in the format requirement and check the returned structure |
| Hide AI output | Internal arrangement before rewriting | After enabling, check whether the downstream node receives the content |
| Thinking configuration | Thinking strength for complex follow-ups | Select the default option; compare with minimal thinking to observe response differences |
The values above are hypothetical starting points for this exercise and are not official default values.
Three common errors
- Writing "pending modification" as "handled and completed." The input is the violation feedback source text; the comparison object is the status field; the observable result is whether the proposed judgment sentence matches the source status.
- Treating retrieval relevance as a permission filter. The input is a query; the comparison object is the ownership identifier of returned records; the observable result is whether unrelated records are excluded because of a low score.
- Treating the display configuration returned by an interactive node as already submitted. The input is the Confirm option of userSelect; the comparison object is whether the follow-up request carries the same chatId; the observable result is whether the workflow continues running.
How to verify the setup
- Take the hypothetical source text above, input the proposed judgment sentence, and compare the status field "pending modification" with "handled and completed." The check is considered passed only when the proposed judgment sentence is changed to match the source text.
- Take the commission ratio 18% from the hypothetical source text, input the follow-up question "what is the commission," and compare whether the answer restates 18%. Any other numeric value is recorded as not passed.
- Construct a paper input
[]as an empty retrieval result, and check whether the downstream node is designed to accept an empty result. Do not claim that retrieval necessarily returns an empty array.