What the documents look like
Site selection and store opening take place before a store begins trading. The work centres on lease negotiation and engineering delivery rather than on supervising a trading outlet. The materials handled day to day are the site evaluation form, the letter of intent for lease, the renovation budget, and the opening schedule. These are completed and passed between headquarters development staff, regional development staff, and engineering managers at different stages. The update frequency is irregular, once per store.
Conversation logs and auditing at this step store the session content tied to site measurement, term negotiation, and milestone coordination under three levels of identifier: application, session, and dialogue. This supports reconciliation during handover. The status of a material itself, whether intent, pending review, or signed, does not change because a log exists.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
The session identifier determines log ownership. The chatId is the ID of one session under one application, and the dataId is the ID of one dialogue under one session. Together with the appId, these three locate a record. During operations handover, the authorization state of a material, an action, or a request must be checked separately at each of these three identifier levels. A retrieval result and a completed form do not constitute authorization or execution.
When the full run process is needed, set detail according to the official contract and inspect responseData. When detail is true, module status and the complete result are held in responseData, and in stream mode they are distinguished through event. Business fields not returned in the log cannot be assumed to have been retained in full. Reconciliation, retention, and compliance requirements are carried out separately through a complete business plan.
Hypothetical paper sample, not actually run: a chain headquarters development department plans to hand a site evaluation form from regional development to an engineering manager. The material text reads: "This form covers the site evaluation for the XX Road store; the preparation stage is intent negotiation; the authorization scope is internal measurement by regional development; no letter of intent for lease has been submitted." The proposed finding sentence reads: "The site evaluation handover is complete, and engineering may arrange the renovation schedule on the basis of this form."
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and the primary task, built around the sample above. The values are starting points for this hypothetical trial only, used to explain the reason for the choice and the comparison object. They do not represent official default values.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason for the choice and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| appId | Sample application identifier | Together with chatId and dataId it locates the log; check whether all three belong to the same application |
| chatId | Sample session identifier | Length under 250; check whether the session is unique and belongs to the same entry point |
| dataId | Sample dialogue identifier | Check whether the dialogue belongs to that session, to avoid mixing across sessions |
| detail | Set to true | Enabled when run details are required; compare with the case where responseData is not returned |
| source | api | Retrieves sessions created through the API; checked separately from page sessions |
| loadCustomFeedbacks | Enabled | Reads custom feedback; compare with the content returned when it is not read |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authority. In the sample the evaluation form is at the intent negotiation stage. Retrieving that form does not mean regional development has been authorized to submit a letter of intent externally. Compare the authorization scope in the material text with the action proposed, and observe whether the two agree.
- Mixing session identifiers. Merging records from different chatIds or different dataIds causes the handover list to include content from other sessions. Check the three identifier levels appId, chatId, and dataId one by one, and observe whether ownership is consistent.
- Treating a completed form as a completed business step. The proposed finding sentence in the sample states the handover is complete, while the material text records only that the preparation stage is intent negotiation. Compare the original status with the drafted conclusion, and observe whether any unstated signing or effective evidence exists.
How to verify the setup
The checks below all use the hypothetical sample above. The expected outcome is a paper judgement; nothing has been executed.
- Input the sample material text and the proposed finding sentence. Compare the wording "intent negotiation, no letter of intent for lease has been submitted" with "handover is complete, renovation schedule may be arranged". Observe whether the conclusion goes beyond the original status. If it does, the sentence is not supported.
- Input the sample appId, chatId, and dataId. Compare whether the three point to the same application, the same session, and the same dialogue. Observe whether any mixing across sessions or applications occurs. If they are inconsistent, record ownership as pending verification.
- Input a request with detail set to true and a request with detail set to false. Compare whether responseData and module status appear in the return. Observe whether run details are obtainable. If they do not appear, run details are missing and remain an evidence gap.
These checks do not claim to have been tested and do not produce any approval, handover, or renovation scheduling business outcome.