What the documents look like
Third-party overseas warehouses can serve several sales channels at once, while inventory allocation across those channels remains the seller's own responsibility. Replenishment judgement therefore draws on the overseas warehouse WMS, ERP sales forecasts, freight forwarder systems and carrier bills at the same time. In the store service and internal training setting, multi-turn dialogue has to handle questions and drafting for four document types: replenishment plans, warehouse entry appointments, inventory age tables and last-mile delivery notes. The supplied brief gives weekly and daily as the update frequencies for this material.
A shared feature of these materials is that the same consignment carries different states in different systems. A replenishment plan states a planned quantity. A warehouse entry appointment states a booked time window. An age table states days in storage. A delivery note states last-mile handover. When a multi-turn exchange treats the state recorded at one stage as the conclusion of another stage, the training session passes on a wrong operating position.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
Prompts need to state the material scope, the answering task and the handling of missing evidence. For conversation history, a new session and a continued session bring in different context, so the content actually carried in has to be checked. Question optimisation applies to reference resolution and question expansion in continuous knowledge-base dialogue, and short questions do not all qualify. For model and length, the supported context and reply settings have to be checked against 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 verified.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample, not a real record:
Material one, replenishment plan text: "On 10 March 2025, warehouse A plans to replenish SKU-1001 for a total of 200 units, expected to arrive at the warehouse on 14 March, owner Li."
Material two, warehouse entry appointment text: "Submitted on 11 March 2025, booked window 15 March 09:00 to 12:00, status pending review."
Material three, inventory age table text: "As of 9 March 2025, SKU-1001 has been in warehouse A for 45 days, quantity 80 units."
Draft sentence to be judged: "SKU-1001 arrived at the warehouse on 14 March as planned, and the warehouse entry appointment has been approved."
This sentence contains two facts that still require verification: whether arrival occurred and whether the appointment was approved. Material one states only an expected arrival. Material two records a status of pending review. Pending review does not constitute approval, and an expected arrival does not constitute a completed arrival. The draft sentence should state the facts already recorded and mark the gaps.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Memory rounds | Keep a small number of history rounds | Training questions need earlier wording for reference; compare against the default value and observe whether unrelated early content is carried in |
| Reply cap | Generate the plan explanation as needed | Compare against truncation behaviour to confirm whether a long explanation is complete |
| Temperature | Low | Store wording needs to be stable; compare against a higher setting for answer consistency |
| Top_p | Keep default | No separate adjustment when temperature already produces the desired result |
| Reply format | Default | Keep default when no downstream step reads a fixed structure |
| Thinking configuration | Default | Simple question and answer does not require higher thinking strength |
The values above are hypothetical starting points for this exercise and are not official default values.
Three common errors
- Writing the pending review in material two as an approved appointment. The input is the material two text, the compared field is the status value, and the observable result is whether the draft sentence repeats "pending review".
- Writing the expected arrival on 14 March in material one as a completed arrival. The input is the material one text, the compared field is the time and status wording, and the observable result is whether the draft sentence keeps "expected".
- Merging the 45 days in the age table with the 200 units in the replenishment plan into a conclusion about one consignment. The input is material one and material three, the compared object is the quantity field, and the observable result is whether the draft sentence treats 80 units and 200 units as the same batch.
How to verify the setup
- Input the material two text and the draft sentence, compare the status field value, and the condition is met when the draft sentence states "pending review" and keeps the gap over whether approval occurred.
- Input the material one text and the draft sentence, compare the time wording, and the condition is met when the draft sentence keeps the word "expected" and does not present an expected arrival as completed.
- Input the material one and material three texts, compare the quantity fields, and the condition is met when the draft sentence cites 80 units and 200 units separately and does not merge them into one batch conclusion.
All three checks are performed against paper materials and do not constitute an actual test result. For the retrieval step, the same vector model identifier has to be checked; libraries on different vector models cannot be associated together, so the check is limited to confirming the identifier and excluding those that do not match, with the actual observation recorded. A relevance score does not act as a category, entity or permission filter, and retrieval does not grant authorisation. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronisation require their stated downstream implementation. A pending request is not an approval, and an offered option is not an execution.