What the documents look like
Central procurement and distribution work in this category turns on four document families: collective procurement contracts, replenishment plans, distribution orders, and store requisition orders. The parties named in these documents are the chain supply chain center, procurement managers, and the distribution center. The underlying data comes from ERP procurement, WMS, store POS, and supplier delivery records, and it updates daily or weekly. Multi-turn dialogue serves store service and internal training by letting store staff or new employees read a requisition order or replenishment plan through a sequence of follow-up questions. The prompt must state the material scope, the answering task, and how to handle missing evidence, so the model does not write in business facts that the source does not contain. When a document field is not provided, it stays unknown. A retrieval hit is not authorization, and a value collected by a form is not a completed business verification.
Constraints at the multi-turn prompts step
History is carried in by session. When a chatId is passed, the system automatically takes the session from the database and uses the last element of the messages array as the user question, while the remaining messages are ignored. When chatId is not passed, the context is built entirely from the messages that are sent. Multi-turn training questions must check what context was actually carried in, and must distinguish a new session from a continued one. Parameters such as model and temperature sent to the chat interface have no effect, because the orchestration decides them and they do not change with API parameters. Reply format is chosen according to what downstream processing needs; when json_schema is selected, the corresponding format requirement must be filled in and the returned structure checked. The thinking budget controls thinking intensity only and cannot be repurposed as a citation token limit.
Hypothetical drill sample: a store requisition order reads, "Store: East China Store 3; requisition date: March 10, 2026; item: ambient yogurt 200 ml; requisition quantity: 48 cases; distribution order status is pending confirmation by the distribution center." A draft sentence to be judged reads, "This requisition order has been confirmed by the distribution center and can be scheduled for dispatch." The source states only that the status is pending confirmation, while the draft sentence records pending confirmation as confirmed, so it is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this trial | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | 4 turns | Training follow-ups usually span two or three questions; compare with 2 turns and 8 turns to see whether the context is sufficient |
| Reply limit | Open, set to a middle range | Compare with a shorter value to see whether the requisition explanation is truncated, and with a longer value to see whether it becomes redundant |
| Temperature | Low | Document questions with clear rules require stability; compare with a higher value to observe wording variation |
| Reply format | Default | No downstream step reads a fixed structure; compare with json_schema to inspect the returned structure |
| Hide AI thinking | Open | The training scenario needs only the final answer; compare with the closed state to inspect the output content |
| Multimodal recognition | Decided by model capability | The requisition order is text; compare with image recognition enabled to see whether unrelated input is introduced |
Three common errors
- Writing a pending status as confirmed. The input is the requisition order source text "distribution order status is pending confirmation by the distribution center," compared with the draft sentence "has been confirmed by the distribution center." A mismatch between the two status values is the error.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization to proceed. The input is a replenishment plan fragment returned by a knowledge base retrieval, compared with whether a distribution action is scheduled on that basis. Executing without verified authorization is the error.
- Treating a form submission as a completed business step. The input is a field value returned by an interactive node form, compared with whether the requisition order is treated as accepted on that basis. Treating submission as acceptance is the error.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source text and the draft sentence, compare the two field values "pending confirmation" and "confirmed," and the condition is met only when the draft sentence is marked unsupported and the evidence gap is preserved.
- Input the sample requisition order with the question "Can this requisition order be dispatched?", compare whether the answer states only that it is pending confirmation and lists the items that need verification, and the condition is met only when the answer does not claim it is confirmed or dispatched.
- Input a paper empty result [] together with a downstream follow-up question, compare whether the downstream step handles it as no retrieval result, and the condition is met only when no document content is fabricated.