What the documents look like
Creator-led sales sessions depend on external creator performance and commission settlement rather than internal brand scheduling. The working materials are the creator cooperation agreement, the commission setting sheet, the sample shipment sheet, and the live session report. These sit alongside conversation records returned by the official chat interface. The official interface returns session and run detail; it does not return the business records themselves. External business records and interface output cannot substitute for each other. The interface responseData records module name, model, tokens, running time, and a quote list. Whether business fields are fully retained depends on the actual returned content; fields not returned remain unknown.
A hypothetical paper sample illustrates the review. A brand business contact and an MCN agency hand over one creator session. The material text for checking contains three sentences. The cooperation agreement states: "The cooperation session is the June 18, 2025 special session; the commission rate follows the commission setting sheet." The commission setting sheet states: "The commission rate for this session is 15%; settlement is based on the transaction amount confirmed in the live session report." The sample shipment sheet states: "Three samples were shipped on June 10; receipt status is pending confirmation." A handover request to be judged reads: "Based on the above materials, settle the commission for this session directly to the creator at 15%." This request concerns settlement execution. The materials reflect cooperation intent, a commission rate, and a shipment record. They do not state settlement authorization, receipt confirmation, or the result of checking the live session report.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity is located through three layers: appId, chatId, and dataId. When chatId is a non-empty string, the session is taken from the database and the last item in the messages array is used as the user question. When chatId is not passed, the context feature is not used. responseChatItemId must be unique under the current chatId. These are session location fields. Similarity scores and quote lists do not carry permission or entity isolation. Run detail requires detail=true under the official contract; non-streaming results are stored in responseData, and streaming distinguishes results through event. Test mode and formal calls may use different identity fields, so inputs, history, and returned content need separate checks. The existence of a log does not mean a compliance audit is complete. Reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements are handled separately by a full business solution.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists officially documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and primary task, using the sample above. The values are hypothetical starting points for this paper comparison and are not official defaults.
| Configuration or check | Hypothetical starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
appId | Assume the application ID for this session | Locates the application owning the session; compare with the session subject in the materials |
chatId | Assume the conversation ID for this session | Non-empty value takes the session from the database; compare one-to-one with the session date in the materials |
detail | Assume set to true | Needed for intermediate values and run detail under the official contract; compare with the return structure when false |
responseChatItemId | Assume the response message ID for this turn | Must be unique under the current chatId; compare with existing records to confirm no duplicate |
stream | Assume set to false | Non-streaming results are stored in responseData; compare with the streaming event return method |
| Run detail check | Assume each responseData module item is reviewed | Check module name, model, tokens, and running time against the material fields item by item |
Three common errors
- Treating
chatIdas an identifier that can be reused across sessions. Input: session records for two special sessions under the samechatId. Comparison object: the two different session dates in the materials. Observable result: the two sessions appear under one conversation and cannot be checked separately by session. - Treating a retrieval similarity score or quote list as a permission or entity filter. Input: one return containing a quote list. Comparison object: other creator records not authorized in the materials. Observable result: the quote list reflects retrieved content only and does not express an authorization boundary.
- Treating the commission rate in the materials as direct grounds for settlement execution. Input: the handover request above. Comparison object: the settlement authorization and receipt confirmation missing from the materials. Observable result: the settlement action requested has no corresponding authorization field in the materials.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three material sentences and the handover request from the sample. Compare the settlement action in the request with the cooperation intent, commission rate, and shipment record stated in the materials. Observable result: the materials do not state settlement authorization or receipt confirmation, so the request remains pending verification.
- Input the hypothetical
appId,chatId, andresponseChatItemId. Compare all three with the cooperation session subject in the materials. Observable result: the three point to the same session andresponseChatItemIdhas no duplicate underchatId, so session location meets the condition. - Input one return from a call with
detail=trueandstream=false. Compare each module item inresponseDatawith the material fields. Observable result: module name, model, tokens, and running time can be read item by item; business fields not provided in the materials are absent from the return, and that gap is recorded as unknown.