What the documents look like
Channel diversion work concerns regional and price order. It handles source codes, low-price storefronts and penalty notices; it does not handle rebate amount calculation. Materials arrive from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records and market inspections. Daily documents include diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices and investigation photographs. These materials update weekly or irregularly, and each complaint form and each inspection record stands as its own file.
For operating reports and anomaly reviews, a conversation log must be aligned with these business materials. The review checks conversation identity, run detail and the scope of retained fields, then confirms which content has entered a queryable record. A conversation log identifies a session under one application by chatId, and identifies a specific exchange under that session by dataId. Checking the target conversation against business records through chatId prevents sessions from different entry points being counted together. When run detail is needed, the official contract sets detail on the chat interface, and the non-streaming response carries module status and complete results inside responseData; a streaming response distinguishes answer, flowNodeStatus, flowResponses and other values through event. The fields actually returned by the log and interface are the basis for checking. Business data that was not returned cannot be assumed to have been retained in full. Identity fields in test mode and in a production call may differ, so input, history and returned content are checked separately. Reconciliation, retention and compliance requirements are carried out by a complete business solution; the existence of a log does not equal a completed compliance audit.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
A hypothetical paper exercise sample is used here. A brand channel control staff member keeps a paper record reading: "On 10 March 2025, the shipment record of East China distributor A shows source code range H-0301 to H-0350 shipped to Jiangsu; on the same day an e-commerce inspection record shows a storefront selling goods from that code range below the regional guidance price; on 12 March a diversion complaint form was created with status pending verification." In the same batch there is a draft sentence: "The storefront has completed the penalty, and the diversion fact is established." The question is whether the draft sentence agrees with the materials.
The materials show only that the complaint form is pending verification. They do not state a penalty decision or an execution result. The phrases "has completed the penalty" and "the fact is established" in the draft sentence are not supported. The status field and the penalty result field are compared; where the penalty result is not recorded, the draft sentence remains unsupported and the evidence gap is kept.
The conversation log step adds its own conditions. The chatId marks a session under one application, and dataId marks one exchange under that session. A review that needs module status and complete results sets detail and inspects responseData in the non-streaming response. A streaming response separates answer, flowNodeStatus, flowResponses and other values through event. Fields that the interface did not return are recorded as unknown rather than treated as retained. A test-mode identity field and a production-call identity field are checked separately against input, history and returned content. Reconciliation, retention and compliance work belongs to a separate complete business solution, and a stored log does not by itself complete a compliance audit. Retrieval and similarity scores do not act as permission or entity isolation, and retrieval is not authorization.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Use on this page | Value and checking method |
|---|---|---|
| appId and chatId | Locate the target application and session | Pass per the official contract; check session ownership; do not count sessions from different entry points together |
| dataId | Locate a specific exchange under the session | Match one by one against business materials; check the scope of the conversation record |
| detail | Obtain run detail | Set to true when intermediate values are needed; inspect responseData in the non-streaming response |
| responseData fields | Check module status and results | Compare field by field against what was actually returned; record unreturned items as unknown |
| source=api | Obtain sessions created through the API | Pass when fetching the session list; distinguish page sessions |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | Read custom feedback | Pass when feedback information is needed; check against returned content |
The values above are starting points for this hypothetical exercise. The reason for choosing them is that they correspond to the conversation-checking needs of this page's sample. Actual values are compared with the official documentation or with the returned results of the environment in use, and are not treated as official defaults.
Three common errors
- Merging sessions with different chatIds into one count. The input is a session list containing two different chatIds. The comparison is the session ownership field. If the merged total does not equal the sum of the counts taken separately for each session, mixing has occurred, and each session is checked separately.
- Setting detail=false while expecting responseData. The input is a request with detail=false. The comparison is whether responseData exists in the returned structure. If it does not exist, module status cannot be obtained; the contract requires setting detail before checking.
- Treating a complaint form pending verification as a completed penalty. The input is the sample complaint form with status pending verification and the draft sentence "has completed the penalty." The comparison is the status field against the penalty result field. If the penalty result is not recorded, the draft sentence is unsupported and the evidence gap is kept.
How to verify the setup
- Input the session and exchange records corresponding to the chatId and dataId in the sample. Compare the chatId returned in the session list with the session identifier marked on the business materials. If they agree, conversation identity checking passes; if they differ, record the difference and do not assume ownership.
- Input a non-streaming request with detail=true. Compare whether responseData contains module name and running time fields. If they are present, run detail is readable; if they are missing, record the result as not obtained and do not infer a cause.
- Input the sample draft sentence and the original complaint form text. Compare the pending verification status with the phrase "has completed the penalty." If the penalty result field is not recorded, the draft sentence is judged unsupported; the original penalty notice text is needed before further checking.
This page addresses only channel diversion review, operating reports and anomaly reviews, and conversation logs and auditing. During an operations handover, the authorization state of materials, operations and requests must be kept clear, and retrieval or a form must not be treated as an authorization to execute.