What the documents look like
For product questions in MCN operations, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. Confirmed activity scope and an unconfirmed rehearsal exercise have different evidentiary roles. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
For this proposed MCN product exercise, an activity scope confirmation permits discussion of lid operation and storage. A presenter training outline adds an inverted-cup demonstration exercise, with a note that brand confirmation is pending. A question about making a sealing-performance claim depends on the role of these documents. The exercise explains rehearsal content but does not establish approval of the performance statement. The pending-confirmation note must travel with the exercise sentence, since quoting only its favourable wording would change the evidence. Lid operation and sealing when inverted are different properties. Permission to explain opening and closing does not establish test conditions, observation methods or permitted performance wording. The activity scope should retain this attribute gap rather than acquiring an additional claim from a rehearsal exercise that still awaits confirmation.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Task check | Material condition | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Permitted scope | Confirmation lists two presentation topics | Trace the scope sentence. |
| Exercise qualification | Inverted-cup exercise awaiting confirmation | Check that the qualification accompanies the citation. |
| Version relationship | Training outline edited more recently | Seek explicit replacement or confirmation evidence. |
| Execution question | Schedule records arranged status only | Seek an actual execution record. |
| Citation coverage | Available passages come from training outline | Record whether the confirmation was actually supplied. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Associated knowledge bases | Knowledge bases associated with one search node must use the same embedding model. |
Citation output | The output is an array; an empty array can continue. |
Citation input handoff | Inspect citations actually received by the answer step. |
Citation display check | Trace displayed sources to their originals. |
Document-validity check | Inspect source identity and applicable version separately. |
Three common errors
Two reading errors need separate investigation. A recent edit to the training outline does not show that the confirmed activity scope was replaced; that requires an explicit replacement relationship and confirmation material. A schedule marked arranged does not establish that a demonstration occurred; an execution record is needed. A source label in FastGPT helps locate the material but cannot resolve either issue. Several citations from the training outline still leave the brand-confirmation gap open if no confirming document is actually supplied.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance questions can ask what may be introduced, whether the inverted-cup exercise is confirmed and whether the demonstration actually took place. Each answer should retain its distinct status: permitted scope from the confirmation, an exercise awaiting confirmation from the outline, and execution still needing evidence. Compare original wording with passages actually delivered to the answer to detect missing qualifications. When citations are empty, inspect scope and passage transfer without converting that absence into a positive or negative conclusion about the activity itself.