What the documents look like
Multi-store matrix operations involve brand e-commerce leads, channel operations staff, and dealer e-commerce teams. The working documents are store authorization lists, price control tables, cross-territory complaint forms, and monthly sales reports. Data arrives from each platform's merchant back office, ERP channel pricing, brand anti-counterfeit systems, and dealer reports, with daily and monthly update cycles. Compared with single-store advertising, this category concentrates on cross-store authorization and price order rather than single-store traffic efficiency. Errors here produce price-system confusion, dealer conflict, and consumers receiving non-genuine goods.
For the conversation logs and audit step, these characteristics mean each conversation must be tied to a specific store and authorization scope. Sessions from different entry points should not be pooled into one calculation. The audit object is the conversation record itself, not a price or authorization conclusion. Matching a target conversation against business records through chatId is the basic reconciliation action. When run details are needed, set detail according to the official contract and inspect module status and complete results inside responseData. The fields actually returned by the log and interface form the basis for reconciliation; business data that is not returned cannot be presumed fully retained. Test-mode and production-call identity fields may differ, so inputs, history, and returned content need separate checks. Reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements belong to a complete business plan implemented elsewhere; the existence of a log does not mean a compliance audit has been completed.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Retrieval results carry no authorization weight. quoteList and similarity scores reflect recall conditions only and do not constitute store authorization or price-execution permission. A relevance score is not a category, entity, or permission filter, and it does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Retrieval is not authorization.
Interactive nodes return display configuration only. The interactive object returned to an external caller contains type and params; internal run-state fields such as entryNodeIds, memoryEdges, nodeOutputs, and nodeResponseId are not returned. When a children, loop, or tool wrapper interaction is hit internally, the interface returns the deepest user-facing interactive node. A pending interaction is not approval, and an offered option is not execution.
Source separation matters for reporting. The getHistories endpoint accepts source=api, which returns conversations created through the API and does not return conversations from the page. Mixing the two sources produces inconsistent reporting scope. The clearHistories endpoint only clears conversations created through the API key and does not clear conversations from online use, share links, or other sources.
Hypothetical drill sample: On 10 March 2026, a brand channel operator submits a handover request. The source material reads: "Store authorization list row 12 states that Store A's authorization is valid from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026; price control table row 3 states that Store A's product A minimum price is 199 yuan; cross-territory complaint form No. 7 states that the complained party is Store B and the status is pending verification." The proposed judgment sentence is: "Store A's product A sold at 189 yuan within the authorization period, constituting cross-territory selling, and a penalty should be executed." The authorization boundary is: the operator submits verification only; penalty execution is not authorized.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check item | Purpose on this page | Judgment method |
|---|---|---|
| chatId | Link the target conversation to business records | Compare material and log under the same chatId |
| detail | Retrieve run details | Set to true, then inspect responseData |
| responseData | Read module status and complete results | Compare item by item against material fields |
| quoteList | Observe cited sources | Observe sources only; do not treat as permission judgment |
| variables | Pass module variables | Check whether substituted values match the material |
| dataId | Locate a single conversation | Map one-to-one with records under the session |
The hypothetical test starting value for this page is pageSize 20. The reason is that the sample material covers only a small number of records, and the value should be compared against the total in the history list before deciding whether to adjust. This value is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval results as authorization evidence. quoteList or similarity reflects recall conditions only and does not constitute store authorization or price-execution permission. In the sample, Store A's price of 189 yuan is below the control table's 199 yuan, which can only be recorded as a price difference pending verification, not as a confirmed cross-territory sale.
- Writing a pending-verification status as a completed penalty. Cross-territory complaint form No. 7 has status pending verification, which is unsupported; it cannot be written as confirmed cross-territory selling or an executed penalty.
- Mixing conversations from different sources. source=api returns only conversations created through the API, which are counted separately from page conversations; mixing them causes inconsistent reporting scope.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the proposed judgment sentence, then compare whether Store A's authorization period covers 10 March 2026, and whether 189 yuan is below 199 yuan. Expected result: the price difference within the authorization period holds, and the cross-territory conclusion remains pending verification. No actual test is claimed.
- Input the handover request and the authorization boundary, then compare whether the request content includes penalty execution and whether the operator holds that authorization. Expected result: the request is verification only, penalty execution is not authorized, and the gap should be recorded.
- Input the chatId and the corresponding log, then compare whether the session source marker is api and whether the records share the same period and fields as the material. Expected result: only when the source matches and the fields correspond can they be included in the same reporting scope; when the source differs or fields are missing, record as pending verification.