What the documents look like
For product questions in General export declarations, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. A contract reference to a delivery appendix still requires inspection of its actual tool entries. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A proposed export selection packet lists support components on a commercial invoice, separate bags for uprights and bases in a packing note, and a contract sentence referring to a delivery-list appendix. A question about included installation tools requires the appendix content itself. The invoice and packing note support listed components and packing arrangements; the reference sentence only identifies material still to inspect. Separate bags do not establish that tools are packed elsewhere or supplied with the set. The answer must distinguish visible entries from the missing list.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Task check | Material condition | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Component name | Invoice lists support components | Check the entry and applicable shipment. |
| Packing arrangement | Uprights and bases separately bagged | Limit the claim to bagging. |
| Appendix reference | Contract names delivery list | Obtain and inspect the referenced text. |
| Shipment identity | Packing note may concern another shipment | Compare source applicability. |
| Tools conclusion | Available text does not define tool scope | Add appendix and inspect actual citations. |
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
Investigate two failures separately. A contract link may appear in a source table while the actual citation array contains no delivery-list wording. That requires checking the link target and text supplied to the answer. Alternatively, a packing note for another shipment may be used for the current components, which requires checking applicability and shipment identity. FastGPT source tracing can help locate these differences, but identical filenames cannot establish identical delivery scope. An unseen tool entry also cannot establish that tools are definitely excluded. If the tools question reaches an appendix name without its entries, the missing list text remains the obstacle. Tools described for another shipment create an applicability mismatch. First resolve the contract-to-appendix relationship, then read tool entries for the actual shipment; a component invoice cannot stand in for that list.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance questions should cover component names, bagging arrangements and whether tools are expressly listed. Preserve the distinct sentences supported by the invoice and packing note; record the appendix text still needed for the tools question. After obtaining it, inspect whether its content actually enters the citations and matches the contract reference. Empty citations call for checking the current material scope and passage transfer. A named appendix or accessible link still requires inspection of its text before it can establish the requested delivery condition.