What the documents look like
For product questions in JD POP seller operations, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. A repaired accessory and original order contents require different supporting sources. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A proposed JD POP exercise combines a product note saying that an extension pole is optional, a historical repair entry recording replacement of that pole and a current accessory list naming the main unit and basic grip. A question about original package contents needs original delivery evidence. Replacement during a service event identifies the serviced component but does not establish that it came with the original order. The current list also needs its applicable variant and period checked before it can describe a historical delivery.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Task check | Material condition | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Optional condition | Product note lists extension pole as optional | Keep variant and condition. |
| Repair subject | Entry records pole replacement | Limit claim to that service action. |
| Historical delivery | Original-package question lacks original documents | Obtain delivery evidence for that period. |
| List period | Current list may not describe earlier delivery | Check temporal applicability. |
| Source identity | Accessory record may concern sales or service | Distinguish by the subject in its text. |
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
Citation review should distinguish two gaps. A repair passage may be used as proof of original packaging, which requires the original delivery material. A current accessory list may be treated as a historical order list, which requires checking temporal applicability. A populated repair citation does not resolve either gap. Even a title such as accessory record does not identify whether its text concerns sales or service. Absence of the pole from these current materials cannot establish that a particular earlier order definitely omitted it. Without a reference to the original order, the repair entry cannot establish the replacement component relationship to initial delivery. A list from another period creates a historical applicability mismatch. Inspect the order-to-service relationship and the configuration conditions in effect then, rather than reconstructing original contents backwards from a replacement action.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance questions should separately address current normal configuration, the component involved in repair and the contents of a historical order. Trace the optional condition to the product note and the replacement action to the repair entry; leave historical delivery dependent on its original documents. Inspect whether variant and period qualifications accompany the cited wording actually received by the answer. Empty references call for investigation of current scope and passage transfer, without rewriting a source-return issue as proof that the accessory or repair record does not exist.