What the documents look like
Third-party overseas warehouses can serve several sales channels at once, and the seller decides how stock is allocated across them. This differs from a single-channel replenishment model where one platform controls the inventory pool. Replenishment plans, inbound booking requests, inventory ageing tables and final-mile delivery notes arrive from different systems: the overseas warehouse WMS, ERP sales forecasts, freight forwarder systems and carrier statements. Some of these update weekly and some daily. For operating reporting and exception review, the conversation record of a replenishment decision has to be aligned with those documents, checking the session identity, the run detail and the fields that were actually returned.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
A conversation log identifies a session by chatId and a single exchange by dataId. When reviewing a replenishment decision, chatId is the link between the target exchange and the corresponding document, and sessions created through different entry points are counted separately. Where run detail is needed, detail is set according to the official contract; non-streaming results are held in responseData, and streaming results are distinguished by event. The log carries only the fields the interface actually returns, so business data that was not returned cannot be assumed to be fully retained. Identity fields in a test mode and in a live call may differ, and input, history and returned content are checked separately. Reconciliation, retention and compliance requirements are handled by the complete business solution, not by the existence of a log.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads "Replenishment plan RP-0715, subject East China warehouse operations team, object Germany overseas warehouse SKU-A, status pending operations supervisor review, effective range 15 July 2025 to 21 July 2025." A second item reads "Inbound booking AS-0716 corresponds to the same SKU, status submitted, no approval result stated." The proposed determination sentence is "RP-0715 has been approved by the operations supervisor and inbound may proceed." The approval evidence this sentence requires is absent from the material, so the determination is recorded as pending verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check item | Input | Observation and comparison |
|---|---|---|
| Session identity | chatId and document number | Whether one chatId maps to only one document |
| Run detail | A call with detail=true | Whether responseData contains the target node fields |
| Field retention | Fields actually returned by the interface | Compare item by item against the fields the business needs |
| Test and live | Identity fields of the two call types | Record input, history and returned content separately |
| Feedback state | dataId and feedback parameter | Whether the recorded value is the value submitted in this instance |
| Audit division of labour | Business solution document | Record log existence and compliance audit separately |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval result or a form submission as authorisation. In the sample, AS-0716 has status submitted, and a submitted status does not constitute an approved status.
- Combining sessions with different chatId values into one count. Mixing sessions from two entry points prevents a one-to-one correspondence between the replenishment decision and the document.
- Using a similarity score to infer permission or entity scope. The score reflects retrieval relevance only and does not exclude other subjects or unauthorised records.
Corresponding checks: compare the submitted status of AS-0716 against the approval field item by item, and record it as pending verification when the approval field is absent; list the two chatId sessions separately and compare whether the document number maps uniquely; record the score alongside dataset_id and sourceId and compare whether any record falls outside the intended scope.
How to verify the setup
Run three checks using the source text and the proposed determination sentence from the hypothetical sample.
- First, take the RP-0715 source text and the proposed determination sentence as input, compare whether the approval field exists, and where the field is absent the proposed determination sentence does not hold.
- Second, take the AS-0716 source text as input, compare the status value against the approval value, and record that submitted does not equal approved and the item is pending verification.
- Third, take the session lists for the two chatId values as input, compare the document number correspondence, and flag any one-to-many mapping for manual review.
All three are paper checks. No interface was called, and no approval, execution or synchronisation result was produced.