What the documents look like
Creator-led sales campaigns depend on external creator performance and commission settlement rather than internal brand scheduling. Brand business teams, MCN agencies and creator managers handle creator cooperation agreements, commission setting forms, sample shipment forms and live-stream performance reports before and after each session. These materials sit across selected alliance platforms, creator marketing platforms, creator historical data and store transaction details, with new records appearing per session and per week.
For conversation logs and audit, the operational question is which materials, operations and requests hold what authorization status at the point of handover. The existence of a log only shows that a conversation record was retained; reconciliation, retention and compliance requirements need a complete business process implemented separately. Retrieval and forms collect or present information and do not constitute authorization execution.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
Conversation identity needs to be checked against the target conversation and business records using chatId, and sessions from different entry points cannot be mixed in one count. When conversation interface run details are needed, set detail according to the official contract and inspect responseData. Fields actually returned by logs and interfaces need item-by-item comparison, and business data not returned cannot be presumed fully retained. Identity fields in test mode may differ from formal calls, so input, history and returned content need separate checks.
Hypothetical drill sample: a brand business contact and a creator manager hand over a Creator Cooperation Agreement on 10 June 2025 for a 18 June 2025 special live session. The agreement text states: "Party A commissions Party B to conduct a special live session on 18 June 2025; the slot fee and commission ratio follow the Commission Setting Form; this agreement takes effect from the date both parties sign." In the same batch is a Sample Shipment Form stating: "3 samples shipped, receipt status is pending confirmation." A draft handover request sentence reads: "The cooperation agreement is effective, samples are received, please open commission settlement permission for this session." The determination needed: whether the cooperation agreement is effective, whether samples are received, and whether commission settlement permission can be opened. The agreement text only states effectiveness upon signing and does not record a signing date or signing status; the sample shipment form only states pending confirmation and does not record a receipt result. The agreement effectiveness status therefore remains to be verified, the sample receipt status remains to be verified, and the commission settlement permission request lacks an effective authorization basis.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| chatId check | One independent chatId per handover session | Compare against business records session by session to confirm conversation ownership does not mix across sessions |
| detail setting | Set to true when run details are needed | Compare against fields actually returned in responseData to confirm whether required node information is present |
| Session source source | Handover audit takes sessions with source=api | Compare against the page session list to confirm the retrieval scope matches the handover scope |
| Feedback fields | Read userGoodFeedback and userBadFeedback as needed | Compare against conversation records to confirm feedback status matches the handover description |
| Session title | Use an identifiable session marker | Compare against the live-stream performance report to confirm the session-to-event mapping |
| Run detail fields | Check moduleType and runningTime | Compare item by item against interface returns and record unreturned fields as gaps |
Three common errors
- Treating a "pending confirmation" sample shipment form as received. The form text only states "receipt status is pending confirmation" and does not record a receipt result, so commission settlement permission cannot be opened on that basis.
- Treating a "effective upon signing" clause as signed. The agreement text only states effectiveness from the date of signing and does not record a signing date or signing status, so the effectiveness status remains to be verified.
- Treating retrieval results or form submissions as authorization execution. Retrieval and forms only collect or present information; opening commission settlement permission requires an independent authorization basis and downstream implementation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the agreement text and sample shipment form text from the hypothetical sample, and compare whether the agreement records a signing date and signing status and whether the sample form records a receipt result. The condition is met only when the text explicitly records the corresponding field; when not recorded, log it as pending verification.
- Input the draft sentence "The cooperation agreement is effective, samples are received, please open commission settlement permission for this session" and compare the draft assertions against the two source texts. When the draft assertion conflicts with the source text or the source text does not record it, judge it unsupported and do not open permission.
- Input the chatId and the session list with source=api, and compare session ownership against the handover session scope. The condition is met only when chatId maps one-to-one to the session and the source scope matches the handover scope; when inconsistent, record the gap and pause the handover.