What the documents look like
B2B marketplace matching does not rely on physical wholesale stalls. Enterprise certification materials, inquiry and quotation sheets, electronic contracts, and platform settlement statements form the main body of daily documents. Because transactions complete online, conversation records become the primary material for checking operational traces during handover. Data sources include the B2B platform, the National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System, payment flows, and logistics traces, with updates occurring daily or per order. These characteristics mean conversation logs and auditing must distinguish session entry points, conversation identity, and run details. Sessions from different sources cannot be counted together. During operations handover, the authorization state of materials and whether a request has been approved require item-by-item checking. A retrieval result or a form submission does not itself constitute authorization.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
The chat interface identifies a session by chatId and a conversation within a session by dataId. When retrieving the session list, source=api returns only sessions created through the API and does not include page sessions. Retrieving run details requires setting detail=true on the chat interface, with results stored in responseData; specific values may differ across versions. Logs and the fields actually returned by the interface need to be checked against each other, and business data that is not returned cannot be presumed to be fully retained. Identity fields in test mode may differ from formal calls, so inputs, history, and returned content need separate checking. Reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements are implemented separately by a complete business plan; the existence of a log does not mean a compliance audit is complete.
Hypothetical paper exercise: a B2B platform operations staff member intends to hand over audit materials for a batch of API-origin sessions to a colleague. The source text provided for checking is: the session list interface returns two records, with chatId values usdAP1GbzSGu and lC0uTAsyNBlZ, source=api. The handover request to be judged is "the conversation logs of the above two sessions are fully retained and can be used directly for compliance auditing." The source text only shows that two sessions exist in the API-origin list; it does not state conversation content, retention scope, or an audit conclusion. That request lacks conversation details and retention evidence, so it is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The following configuration addresses the sample above and lists only officially documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and primary task.
| Configuration item | Assumed starting point for this exercise | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Session source | source=api | Compare with the source field in the session list response to confirm only API-origin sessions are taken |
| Session identifier | chatId | Compare one by one with the two chatId values in the material to confirm target sessions |
| Conversation identifier | dataId | After retrieving the conversation list, compare with the dataId in records to confirm conversation identity |
| Run details | detail=true | Check whether responseData exists in the response and compare with the required node responses |
| Feedback reading | loadCustomFeedbacks | Set as needed and compare with the customFeedbacks field returned by the conversation list |
| Authentication method | Authorization: Bearer | Check the request header to confirm the key matches the target application permissions |
The assumed starting point source=api was chosen because the sample material clearly comes from an API-origin list. Comparing against page sessions requires a different source parameter value, and the two cannot be counted together. detail=true is the assumed starting point for checking run details in this exercise; it must be compared with the actual content returned in responseData, and it cannot be presumed that all node fields are complete.
Three common errors
- Treating a chatId in the session list as a complete conversation log. The input is the session list response, the comparison objects are the conversation list and run details, and if dataId and responseData are not retrieved, the retention conclusion is unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval hit or form submission as authorized execution. The input is a retrieval hit or form entry, the comparison object is the authorization status field, and if the material does not state approval or effect, the request remains pending verification.
- Mixing identity fields from test mode with formal calls. The input is variables in a test request, the comparison object is the authentication and appId of the formal call, and if the two differ, history and returned content must be checked separately.
How to verify the setup
- Input the two chatId values and source=api from the sample material, and compare the chatId and source fields returned by the session list. If both records appear and source is api, the target session scope is satisfied; if either is missing, record the gap.
- Input the handover request to be judged, and compare whether the source text states conversation content, retention scope, and audit conclusion. If the source text lists only session identifiers, "fully retained" is unsupported; if conversation details and retention notes are attached, check each item.
- Input a request with detail=true, and compare whether responseData exists in the response and which node responses it contains. If responseData exists and node responses are readable, run details can be checked; if it is not returned, this item remains pending verification.