What the documents look like
Returns refurbishment handles reverse logistics and item condition, which places it in a different operational stage from first-leg replenishment. In store service and internal training, a multi-turn dialogue works across four record types: the return inspection form, the refurbishment record, the scrap form, and the resale listing sheet. The inspection form records item condition and the assigned return grade. The refurbishment record records packaging and handling actions. The scrap form records disposal of items that cannot be resold. The resale listing sheet records items approved for relisting. These materials update daily or per batch, and store staff often ask follow-up questions that span several turns, so the model must keep citing the same batch of materials consistently.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
History in a multi-turn dialogue is governed by the memory turns setting. A larger value makes it easier for the model to reference earlier turns, but it also carries more content into the request, which can raise consumption and slow the response. In store service, a staff member may first ask for the inspection conclusion on a batch and then ask whether that batch appears on the resale listing sheet, which requires the model to retain the earlier batch identifier. The prompt needs to state the material scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence, so the model does not write in business facts on its own.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source text reads "Return inspection form, batch 12: subject is the store after-sales group; object is 40 Bluetooth earphones; condition is outer packaging damaged, function pending retest; date range is March 5 to March 6." "Refurbishment record, batch 12: outer packaging replacement completed for 30 units; function retest passed for 28 units." The draft sentence to be judged is "Batch 12 Bluetooth earphones have all completed refurbishment and can be relisted." That draft does not match the materials. The materials record only 30 units with packaging replacement completed and 28 units that passed retest, and no resale listing sheet was provided. In a follow-up turn, the model should state that the listing status is unsupported and remains to be verified.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below centers on this page's sample and lists settings described in the official documentation alongside implementation checks. The values are hypothetical starting points for this drill, used to compare against another set of values, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical drill starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | Select a model that supports a long context | Must hold inspection form and refurbishment record for the same batch; compare the maximum context value across models |
| Memory turns | Set to 6 turns | Covers the batch inspection to listing follow-up; compare with 3 turns to see whether the batch identifier is lost |
| Temperature | Set to a low value | Store service is a rule-defined scenario; compare with a higher value for answer stability |
| Response limit | Turn on and set to a medium length | Needs to output a verification conclusion; compare with a very short value to see whether output is truncated |
| Response format | Keep the default | No downstream fixed-structure reading is required; choosing json_schema would require filling in the format requirement |
| Multimodal recognition | Enable image recognition according to model capability | Inspection photos are image input; compare with a model that does not support images |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval similarity as a permission filter. Similarity is a recall ranking reference and does not perform entity separation between the store after-sales group and outside parties. The error appears as the belief that a similarity setting can exclude unrelated business. Check method: enter the batch query from this page's sample, compare whether the returned records include materials from other batches, and observe whether cross-batch records appear.
- Writing a pending-review status as already approved. In the materials, "function pending retest" is an incomplete status, and the draft sentence "have all completed refurbishment" goes beyond the materials. Check method: enter the inspection form source text and the draft sentence, compare the status field, and observe whether the draft sentence matches "pending retest."
- Treating form collection at an interactive node as business execution. A form only collects values; relisting, scrapping, and refund actions require downstream implementation. Check method: enter the form return content, compare whether a business completion status appears, and observe whether an unauthorized execution conclusion is present.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the inspection form and refurbishment record source text from this page's sample, compare whether the model answer cites only the stated values of batch 12, 40 units, 30 units, and 28 units, and observe whether the answer introduces a listing or scrap conclusion not stated in the materials. The condition is not met if an unstated conclusion appears.
- Enter the draft sentence "Batch 12 Bluetooth earphones have all completed refurbishment and can be relisted," compare it with the status field in the materials, and observe whether the answer states that the listing status is unsupported and remains to be verified. The condition is not met if the answer directly confirms relisting.
- Enter the empty-result continuation case, with a paper input of
[], compare whether the downstream node design handles an empty reference, and observe whether a fabricated record appears. The condition is not met if the downstream treats the empty result as a completed listing sheet. All of the above are paper checks and were not run.