What the documents look like
Price and display audits occur during day-to-day operations, not during franchise onboarding or opening coaching. The focus is sustained execution of standards. Data arrives weekly or monthly from supervision systems, POS price lists, store cameras, and headquarters promotion calendars. This cadence means conversation logs and audit work deal with session records that accumulate across weeks and months. The everyday documents are store visit photos, price tag lists, display standards, and rectification notices, each tied to a different responsible party and a different stage.
For operations handover, the practical question is what state each submitted material or request occupies inside a conversation. A price tag photo appearing in an audit session does not by itself establish that the photo belongs to the current store visit scope. That determination requires checking the chatId against the corresponding business record item by item. Retrieval hits and completed form entries do not constitute authorization.
Constraints at the conversation logs step
The conversation interface documentation states that when chatId is a non-empty string, the system retrieves the session from the database and uses the last item in the messages array as the user question, ignoring the remaining messages. Multiple calls under the same chatId share context. During audit work, the target conversation must be confirmed against the business record, and sessions from different entry points must not be counted together.
When run details are needed, detail is set according to the official contract, and in non-stream mode the result is stored in responseData. Fields for different modules inside responseData may vary by version, so business data that was not returned cannot be presumed to have been fully retained. Identity fields in test mode may differ, and inputs, history, and returned content should each be 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 drill sample: a chain brand regional supervisor conducts store visits from 10 March 2026 to 16 March 2026 and submits a session through an application, with chatId recorded as store-0310-A. The last message reads: "Please confirm whether the price tag rectification for Store A on 12 March has been closed." Two source sentences accompany the material: "Rectification notice number A-0312, issue date 12 March 2026, status is awaiting store confirmation." "Store returned photo on 14 March 2026; photo content is shelf price tags." Proposed draft sentence for review: "The price tag rectification for Store A on 12 March has been closed." This draft sentence concerns Store A, price tag rectification, and closed status. The material shows only awaiting store confirmation and a returned photo; it records no confirmation of completion or review pass.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Relevant setting on this page | Check point |
|---|---|---|
| chatId | Non-empty string, length under 250 | Corresponds to the store visit batch in the business record; confirm the same session is not reused by another entry point |
| detail | Set to true or false per the official contract | Set true when run details are needed; in non-stream mode inspect responseData |
| messages | Last item serves as the user question | Remaining messages are ignored; during audit work the last item is the reference |
| source | Pass api when retrieving the session list | Returns only sessions created through the API; page sessions are excluded |
| Hypothetical trial starting value | Sample chatId length recorded as 12 | Drill starting point only; compare against the 250 upper bound to judge whether it exceeds the limit |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. Input: rectification notice A-0312 retrieved within the session for chatId store-0310-A. Comparison: the notice status field reads "awaiting store confirmation." Observable result: the retrieval hit shows the record exists; it does not show the store has confirmed or that rectification is closed.
- Treating a returned photo as closure evidence. Input: the shelf price tag photo returned by the store on 14 March. Comparison: the material records no review-pass or completion-confirmation field. Observable result: the photo is stage-related evidence; closed status remains unsupported.
- Counting sessions from different entry points together. Input: page sessions and API sessions under the same appId. Comparison: when source is passed as api during session list retrieval, page sessions are not returned. Observable result: without distinguishing source, page sessions are counted into API session statistics, producing a mismatch of responsible party and period.
How to verify the setup
- Input: the hypothetical sample chatId store-0310-A and the last message "Please confirm whether the price tag rectification for Store A on 12 March has been closed." Comparison: whether this chatId corresponds one-to-one with the store visit batch record and whether its length is under 250. Observable result: when it corresponds and does not exceed the limit, the condition is met; otherwise a gap is recorded.
- Input: the proposed draft sentence "The price tag rectification for Store A on 12 March has been closed." Comparison: in the source material the rectification notice status is "awaiting store confirmation," and no completion-confirmation field exists. Observable result: the draft sentence shares the same responsible party, period, and field as the material, and the values are mutually exclusive, so the sentence is judged unsupported.
- Input: a session list request with source passed as api. Comparison: whether the returned list contains only sessions created through the API. Observable result: when page sessions do not appear in the list, the condition is met; if they appear, record the result of the source field check.