What the documents look like
For product questions in TikTok Shop US operations, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. A matte finish and sample scratches leave composition and general resistance commitments unestablished. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A proposed TikTok Shop selection case contains a Listing description of a matte housing, a return-grading note observing scratches on one sample and no material-composition sheet. A question about a metal and scratch-resistant housing asks for properties that neither passage establishes. Matte describes a surface finish, while the scratches describe an observation about one item. Citation review needs to keep these attribute boundaries visible, since shared use of the word housing does not supply composition evidence or a general resistance commitment. The grading note also gives no cause for the scratches. Transport or use must not be selected as an explanation without evidence. The observation can be cited as an item-specific appearance finding, while its mechanism and the product-wide performance remain unestablished by this particular return record.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Task check | Material condition | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Surface finish | Matte describes the finish | Trace the Listing sentence. |
| Sample observation | Scratches concern one item | Retain the item and observation scope. |
| Composition gap | Composition sheet not supplied | Specify material needed for verification. |
| Passage identity | Citation may concern another variant | Compare version and product subject. |
| Investigation branches | Empty array or missing attribute in passage | Inspect transfer or evidence coverage accordingly. |
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 misuses require different checks. A return-grading observation may be presented as a general product specification, which calls for checking the recorded item and observation scope. Alternatively, a Listing source name may be displayed while its finish description never reaches the answer, which calls for checking actual citation text. Matte alone cannot establish metal construction, and scratches on one sample cannot establish the general resistance of the product line. Identify the missing supporting material rather than completing either claim through inference.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance questions should separately address surface finish, the sample observation, composition and resistance evidence. The first two answers can trace to supplied sentences; the latter two should remain unresolved within this fixture. Retain the Listing version and grading-record identity, then inspect whether citation content includes passages for a different variant. Empty references and populated references missing an attribute are distinct investigation starting points. Check transfer in the former and evidence coverage in the latter, without rewriting both as a claim that product information does not exist.