What the documents look like
Dealer rebate calculation happens after sales close, and its core is policy interpretation and financial offset. The working materials are rebate policies, sales achievement tables, reconciliation statements, and red-letter invoices. The underlying data comes from ERP sales, dealer remittances, contract ledgers, and the finance system. Because the result feeds revenue recognition, a disagreement about interpretation becomes a rebate dispute.
Conversation logs and audit records matter at the handover step because every question and request about achievement interpretation, return deductions, and invoice offset needs a traceable record. When operations staff change over, the incoming owner has to check which materials, actions, and requests carried what authorization status. A retrieval result or a submitted form is not an authorization decision, and a pending request is not an approval.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Rebate questions often span months and quarters, and one dealer may have several rounds of communication in the same period. The chat interface identifies a session by chatId and a single exchange within that session by dataId. During handover, the target conversation has to be matched to the corresponding business record by chatId so that sessions from different entry points are not merged into one calculation. The session list endpoint with source=api returns only sessions created through the API; page-based sessions are not included. If handover material came from a page entry point, its origin has to be confirmed separately.
When run details are needed, detail is set according to the official contract. With detail=true and stream=false, intermediate values are held in responseData. With detail=true and stream=true, they are distinguished through event, and the complete node response appears in flowResponses. Field meanings follow what the interface actually returns; business data that is not returned cannot be assumed to have been fully retained. Identity fields in test mode may differ from a production call, so input, history, and returned content are checked separately. The existence of a log does not mean a compliance audit is complete; reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements are handled by the full business solution.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a brand finance user holds one document during a quarterly rebate handover. Its text reads: "Dealer A rebate policy for the third quarter of 2025: the achievement rate is calculated on the remittance basis, and return amounts are deducted from the achievement base." A draft sentence is awaiting judgment: "Dealer A's third-quarter rebate has been calculated on the remittance basis and is ready for handover." The document states only the policy interpretation. It does not state whether the calculation was completed, who completed it, or whether any approval occurred. The draft sentence turns a policy interpretation into a completed calculation, which the material does not support, and it should be returned for the completion status and approval record.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below is built around that sample and lists official documented settings or implementation check items relevant to this feature and this task. The values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, chosen for comparability, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| chatId | A handover-sample-specific string | Locates this round of rebate questions; compared against the business record for a one-to-one match |
| dataId | The sample conversation record ID | Locates a single exchange; the returned content is compared against the material |
| detail | true | Node details in responseData or flowResponses need to be inspected |
| stream | false | Reads responseData in one pass and reduces event reassembly |
| source | api | Returns only API-created sessions; checks whether the handover material origin matches |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | true | Reads custom feedback and checks whether any annotation exists during the handover period |
Three common errors
- Treating a policy interpretation as a completed calculation. The sample material states only that the achievement rate is calculated on the remittance basis, while the draft sentence says the rebate has been calculated on that basis. The input is the material text and the draft sentence; the comparison is between a stated interpretation and a completion status, which are different fields and do not support each other. The observable result is that the draft sentence lacks a completing party and an approval record.
- Merging sessions from different entry points into one count. The input is a page session and an API session; the comparison is the source value, and the page session does not appear in the source=api return. The observable result is a mismatch between the number of sessions listed and the actual handover scope.
- Treating log retention as a completed compliance audit. The input is the conversation record; the comparison is against the full business material a compliance audit requires. A log shows only that a question and answer exist, not that reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements have been met. The observable result is the absence of an independent audit conclusion.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the draft sentence. Compare whether "policy interpretation" and "calculation completed" occupy the same field. Observe whether the draft sentence is supported by the material. The expected result is that the draft sentence is marked as unsupported and returned for a completion status and approval record.
- Input the chatId and source=api. Compare the returned session list against the handover material list. Observe whether the two sets of entries match. The expected result is that the page-origin session does not appear in the list, and the handover scope is corrected accordingly.
- Input detail=true and stream=false. Compare the module fields returned in responseData against the fields the material requires. Observe which fields are missing. The expected result is that any field not returned is recorded as an evidence gap and is not assumed to have been retained.