What the documents look like
Low-price campaign operations on Pinduoduo revolve around low-price resource slots, campaign inventory and swings in the refund rate. The working materials are campaign registration forms, product cost calculation sheets, after-sales refund documents and platform internal messages. These materials update daily or per campaign. During an operations handover, the registration, cost, refund and internal-message records for one campaign need to be tied to a specific conversation. Conversation logs and auditing act as the checking entry point here: confirming which campaign a given conversation belongs to, which chatId and dataId it carries, and whether the run detail for that conversation was returned by the interface. The materials sit in several sources, so chatId and dataId are used as the threads that align conversation records with business materials. Conversations from different entry points are not merged into one count.
Three industry facts shape this step. Materials update daily or per campaign, so a handover must fix the date or campaign scope before any record is matched. Refund documents and campaign registration forms both reference the same product code, which makes the product code the natural cross-reference when aligning a conversation with a refund. Platform internal messages are a separate source from the conversation log, so a message existing in one place does not place it in the other.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
The conversation interface associates conversations through chatId, and dataId identifies a single conversation turn. When chatId is not passed, the system does not use database context and builds context entirely from the supplied messages. When a non-empty chatId is passed, the system takes the database conversation and uses the last item of the messages array as the user question. A responseChatItemId, when passed, is stored as the response message ID and must be unique under the current chatId. The detail field decides whether intermediate values are returned; in non-stream mode the result sits in responseData, and in stream mode it is distinguished by event. The conversation management interface with source=api returns conversations created through the API and does not return page conversations. Clearing application conversations clears only those created by an API key and does not affect conversations from online use or shared links. The similarity value in a retrieval result is a relevance number and does not carry permission or entity isolation. A log existing does not mean a compliance audit is complete; reconciliation, retention and compliance requirements are handled by a fuller business plan.
Hypothetical drill sample: an operator handing over a low-price campaign supplies three lines of source material. "Campaign registration form, row 12: campaign session A, product code P-100, registration price 9.9 yuan, registration status submitted." "Product cost calculation sheet, row 5: product code P-100, unit cost 8.6 yuan, calculation date March 4." "After-sales refund document, row 3: product code P-100, refund amount 9.9 yuan, refund date March 6." The draft sentence to be judged: "The conversation logs for P-100 in this campaign have been fully retained and can be used for a compliance audit." This sentence involves a subject, an object, a status and a validity scope, and each item needs to be checked.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Documented content | How this sample is checked |
|---|---|---|
| chatId | A non-empty string uses the database conversation and is shorter than 250 | Check whether the chatId in the handover material matches this campaign session |
| dataId | Identifies one conversation turn under a conversation | Check whether the refund document and the conversation record point to the same dataId |
| detail | Decides whether intermediate values are returned; non-stream results sit in responseData | Set detail when run detail is needed and inspect responseData |
| responseChatItemId | Stored as the response message ID and unique under the current chatId | Check whether the response message ID in the draft sentence is unique |
| source=api | Returns conversations created through the API, not page conversations | Check whether the conversation source is the API and exclude page conversations |
| Retrieval similarity | A relevance number | Record the number and do not treat it as a permission or entity filter |
Hypothetical starting point for this sample: set detail to true, because the run detail inside responseData is needed, and compare against the result when detail is false, which returns only choices. This starting point belongs to this exercise and is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval relevance as a permission filter. Input: a retrieval returns a quote with similarity 0.89. Compare: that number against a permission field. Observed result: the number reflects relevance only and does not indicate that the record has been authorized.
- Treating the existence of a log as a completed compliance audit. Input: the draft sentence claims the conversation logs have been fully retained and can be used for a compliance audit. Compare: whether the material states a retention scope, an audit subject and a compliance conclusion. Observed result: the material holds only the registration, cost and refund lines, with no retention scope or audit conclusion, so the sentence is unsupported.
- Treating a pending status as granted authorization. Input: registration status "submitted". Compare: whether an approval record or an authorization boundary statement exists. Observed result: the material states no approval outcome, so a pending review neither shows a lack of operating permission nor shows that permission was granted.
How to verify the setup
- Check chatId against dataId. Input: the chatId for campaign session A in the hypothetical sample and the dataId corresponding to row 3 of the refund document. Compare: whether the two point to the same conversation and the same turn. Observed result: when they match, the conversation record and the refund material correspond; when they do not, record the gap and do not assume full retention.
- Check detail against responseData. Input: a hypothetical request with detail=true and stream=false. Compare: whether responseData contains module run detail. Observed result: when responseData is returned and carries fields such as moduleName and runningTime, run detail is obtained; when it is not returned, record that it was not obtained and do not infer a system error cause.
- Check the conversation scope of source=api. Input: a hypothetical conversation list request with source=api. Compare: whether the returned list contains only API-created conversations. Observed result: when the list contains page-origin conversations, this check does not meet the condition; when it contains only API conversations, record the actual observation without claiming full recall or that unrelated queries must be empty.
This page addresses only Pinduoduo low-price campaign operations, the operations permission and handover task, and conversation logs and auditing. Which materials, operations and requests sit in which authorization state during a handover cannot treat retrieval or a form as an authorization execution.