What the documents look like
Pinduoduo low-price campaign operations revolve around low-price resource slots, campaign inventory, and refund-rate swings. The working materials are campaign registration forms, product cost calculation sheets, after-sales refund slips, and platform internal messages. These materials update daily or per campaign. For operating reviews and exception review, the conversation log and audit step aligns the subject, object, status, and validity scope recorded in those materials against the fields actually returned by the chat interface.
Two facts shape this step. First, campaign registration forms carry a registration subject and a campaign object, and their status field can sit at a pending stage rather than a completed one. Second, after-sales refund slips carry a refund status that likewise may be pending. A review draft that reads a pending status as a completed outcome misstates the material. The task here is comparison of proposed copy against supplied source wording, not identity certification, report analysis, or execution of any business action.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
The chat interface returns runtime details only when the request sets detail and the reviewer inspects responseData. Business data that the interface does not return cannot be treated as fully retained. Test-mode identity fields may differ from formal calls, so inputs, history, and returned content need separate checks. The existence of a log does not equal a completed compliance audit; reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements are carried out by a complete business plan separately. Retrieval and similarity scores do not perform permission or entity isolation, and libraries across different vector models cannot be jointly associated.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: On 10 March 2025, a campaign operator submits a campaign registration form. The registration subject is Shop A, the campaign object is the spring low-price special session, and the registration status is "pending review." On the same day an after-sales refund slip arrives, refund slip number R-0310-07, refund status "pending review," refund amount 39 yuan. The proposed draft sentence reads: "Shop A's spring low-price special session registration has passed review, and refund slip R-0310-07 has completed the refund." The judgment to be made is whether this draft sentence matches the two source materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented setting or implementation check | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Authentication and identity | APIKey authentication; when calling chat/completions, passing body.appId in the request body is recommended | Check session ownership for Shop A in the sample |
| Session identifier | chatId is the session ID; dataId is the conversation ID under a session | Separate the registration-form session from the refund-slip session |
| Runtime detail | When runtime detail is needed, set detail=true and inspect responseData | Check the run record referenced by the sample draft sentence |
| Intermediate values | With detail=true and non-stream mode, results are stored in responseData | Compare node output against source material wording |
| Session list | When getting the session list, source=api retrieves only sessions created through the API | Exclude page sessions from the sample check |
| Feedback fields | Updating feedback uses userGoodFeedback or userBadFeedback | Record the manual check conclusion for the sample draft sentence |
Hypothetical trial starting point for this exercise: set detail to true, because the node output inside responseData needs to be inspected; compare against the detail=false return to confirm whether intermediate values are included. This starting point is a paper-exercise setting, not an official default value.
Three common errors
- Reading "pending review" as "passed review." In the sample, both the registration status and the refund status are "pending review," while the draft sentence writes "has passed review" and "has completed the refund." This treats a pending status as a completed status.
- Mixing records from different sessions. In the sample, the registration form and the refund slip belong to different chatId values. Merging them under one chatId during the check mismatches the fields of the two materials.
- Treating the existence of a log as a completed compliance audit. In the sample, even when runtime detail is retrievable, reconciliation and retention are still carried out by a complete business plan separately. The existence of a log does not mean the compliance audit is complete.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample registration form wording "registration status is pending review" and the draft sentence "registration has passed review." Compare how the two describe the registration status. If the draft sentence contains "has passed review" while the source says "pending review," the draft sentence is judged inconsistent with the source.
- Input the sample refund slip wording "refund status is pending review" and the draft sentence "has completed the refund." Compare how the two describe the refund status. If the draft sentence contains "has completed the refund" while the source says "pending review," the draft sentence is judged inconsistent with the source.
- Input the registration-form chatId and the refund-slip chatId from the sample. Compare whether the two are identical. If they differ while the check treats them as one chatId, record this as mixed session attribution and check them separately.
All of the above is a paper check. No interface was actually called, no review was actually submitted, and no refund was actually executed. Retrieval and similarity do not handle permission or entity isolation. Libraries across different vector models cannot be jointly associated; identifiers must be checked first and non-matching items excluded.