What the documents look like
Price and display auditing happens during day-to-day operations rather than at franchise onboarding, so the material reflects continuous standard execution. Supervisory systems, POS price lists, store camera records and head-office promotion calendars feed weekly and monthly summaries. The working documents are store visit photos, price tag lists, display standards and rectification notices. An operating review has to answer whether one store visit record and one conversation log entry refer to the same store, the same promotion window and the same field. The conversation log and audit step aligns session identifiers, run details and business records so that an exception review has traceable evidence.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
The session identifier chatId separates different conversations under one application, and dataId separates individual exchanges inside one conversation. A review must confirm that the target exchange and the business record belong to the same chatId; conversations from different entry points cannot be counted together. When run details are needed, detail is set according to the official contract and the module responses inside responseData are inspected. When detail is false, intermediate values are not returned, so business fields missing from a log cannot be assumed to have been retained in full.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: an operations staff member submits a store visit file whose two source sentences read, "Week 2 of March 2025, Area A store price tag spot check record: the promotion price tag matches the POS price list." and "The display standard execution photos for the same batch have been archived." A separate handover request is attached for determination: "Please send the exception question-and-answer entries from this week's conversation logs directly as the basis for rectification."
That request treats the existence of a log as equivalent to issuing a rectification. A log existing does not mean a compliance audit is complete; reconciliation, retention and compliance requirements are carried out separately by a full business solution. Forms collect values, and business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation. Retrieval results do not constitute authorization, and similarity does not perform entity or permission isolation.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below covers the sample above and lists documented settings or implementation check items relevant to this feature and the primary task. The values are hypothetical starting points for manual comparison in this exercise and are not official default values.
| Check item | Documented content | Implementation check method for this exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Session identifier chatId | A non-empty string uses the database conversation and takes the last messages entry as the user question | Hypothetical starting point is a single chatId for the sample store for that week, compared against the store visit file date |
| Response identifier responseChatItemId | When passed, it becomes the response message ID stored in the database and must be unique under the same chatId | Hypothetical starting point is the sample request number, checked for duplication against existing values under that chatId |
| Run detail detail | When true, intermediate values and the complete result are returned; in non-stream mode they are kept in responseData | Hypothetical starting point is true, comparing each module field in responseData against the file fields |
| Variables variables | An object replaces the [key] entries in module inputs | Hypothetical starting point is two keys, store number and promotion window, checked against the file after replacement |
| Conversation source source | When source=api, only conversations created through the API are retrieved | Check the sample conversation source and exclude records whose source does not match before comparison |
| Interactive node interactive | The display configuration is returned and contains only type and params; internal run-state fields are not returned | Check whether the returned structure contains the approval fields the pending request would require |
Three common errors
- Merging conversations from different chatId values into one count. The input is two log entries from different store conversations; compare whether their chatId values are identical, and when they differ, do not fold them into one store's exception count.
- Treating a response with detail set to false as a complete record. The input is a response where detail was not enabled; compare whether responseData fields are absent, and when they are absent record the result as unsupported rather than inferring that business data was retained.
- Treating a pending handover request as an approved execution. The input is the handover request in the sample; compare whether it states an approving party and an effective scope, and when neither is stated record it as pending verification rather than concluding that rectification was issued.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample file text and the sample chatId, then compare whether the file date and the updateTime of the conversation matching that chatId fall in the same promotion window. The condition is met when the two agree and the file fields have corresponding entries in responseData.
- Input the sample handover request and compare whether the request contains an approving party, an effective scope and an execution action. The condition is met when all three are present and point to the same store and the same promotion window; a record missing any one of the three is pending verification.
- Input one hypothetical response with detail set to true and one with detail set to false, then compare whether responseData fields are present in each. When the first contains them and the second does not, the run detail depends on that setting; this does not support any claim about whether business data was retained.
All of the above is paper comparison. No actual call was executed, and no approval, rectification or synchronization took place. Retrieval checks observe only the returned and failure branches and do not guarantee a first-position hit or full recall. An empty result can be checked against a downstream design using the explicit paper input []; no claim is made that a given rule search necessarily returns an empty array.