What the Data for This Category Looks Like
Data sources for IT service intelligent due diligence reports fall into three categories: public qualification certification documents from IT service providers, full-cycle project delivery records, and operation and maintenance monitoring logs. Qualification documents are updated according to certificate validity periods. Delivery records are synchronized with project milestones. Operation logs are generated in real time at the minute level. A single due diligence data document includes fields such as project number, service provider name, qualification level, delivery cycle, compliance item list, and total fault count. The unit for delivery cycle is days. Qualification level uses industry-standard grading. The unit for fault count is times. Metadata includes document upload time and source system identifier.
Constraints Imposed on the Citation Sources and Traceability Link
Multi-source and heterogeneous data characteristics require the traceability link to accurately distinguish different data source types, to avoid confusing citations between qualification documents and operation logs. Real-time updated operation logs require an incremental recall mechanism to prevent repeated citations of expired data. Static qualification documents can use full recall. The specialized nature of fields requires matching specific business fields during traceability. For example, only associate delivery records corresponding to project numbers. Do not use generalized document content as a matching basis. Differences in document formats across sources also require the traceability link to adapt to metadata extraction rules for PDF qualification documents and field mapping rules for structured operation tables. This ensures the accuracy and readability of citations.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Recall Count | Top 8 | IT service due diligence data includes multiple types of business fields. Excessive recall leads to citation redundancy and interferes with core information display |
Similarity Threshold | 0.72-0.85 | IT service due diligence has a high proportion of professional terminology. A threshold that is too low introduces irrelevant documents. A threshold that is too high fails to recall valid compliance items and delivery records |
Knowledge Base ID Variable | Use dynamic variable binding | IT service due diligence manages knowledge bases by project grouping. Dynamic variables enable precise invocation of knowledge bases for different projects |
Citation Source Display Switch | Enable structured display | Due diligence reports require clear labeling of source types. Structured display distinguishes qualification documents, delivery records, and operation logs |
Data Source Identification Tag | Auto-label based on document metadata | Documents from different sources carry dedicated metadata fields. Auto-labeling avoids errors from manual classification |
Log Source Distinction Field | project_id | Data between IT service projects is isolated. Using project number as the log distinction field enables precise filtering for single-project traceability |
The parameter values provided on this page are conventional recommendations used to establish a starting point for configuration. Actual values are affected by material format, data volume, and business rules. Specific issues require case-by-case analysis. It is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three Common Misconfiguration Scenarios
- The symptom is a blank dropdown menu for citation variables in the
Knowledge Base Searchnode of the workflow, making it impossible to select a dynamic knowledge base. The cause is failure to create aKnowledge Base IDtype variable in global variable configuration, or failure to bind access permissions for the corresponding data source to the variable. - The symptom is unexpected tool call intermediate field references appearing in the generated due diligence report. The cause is failure to disable non-essential node output traceability switches in the workflow, resulting in intermediate
inputandresponsecontent from tool calls being included in the citation scope. - The symptom is traceability logs stored in Mongodb failing to distinguish data by project. The cause is failure to configure the
Log Source Distinction Fieldparameter, and failure to use project number as the unique identification field for logs.
How to Verify Proper Configuration
- Enter the
Knowledge Base Searchnode in the workflow, check the citation variable dropdown menu, and confirm that configured dynamic variables display normally. - Trigger a test call, view the generated due diligence report, and confirm that only structured citations from knowledge base sources are displayed, with no output content from tool intermediate nodes.
- Log in to the Mongodb console, query traceability logs, and confirm that each log carries the
project_idfield, enabling filtering of corresponding data by project number. - Manually enter IT service professional terminology to initiate a query, and confirm that the similarity of recalled documents falls within the preset
0.72-0.85range.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-14.