What the documents look like
Omnichannel stock transfer work moves goods between stores and warehouses. It does not handle marketing outreach. The operational records come from ERP inventory, store POS, e-commerce orders and WMS. The everyday documents are transfer requests, inventory snapshots, store shortage lists and transfer logistics notes.
Product data and selection questions in this setting ask where a given SKU sits, how many units were transferable at a stated point in time, and which transfer route applies. An answer of that kind has to point back to the wording of one specific document. Store inventory staff and e-commerce warehouse staff act on that wording, so an answer without a traceable source cannot be executed.
Update frequency is daily and weekly. This page does not depend on the frequency itself. It requires that a citation state the document version and time range it relies on.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node outputs a citation array, and the array length can be zero. When no content is found, that output path still completes. The citation content then goes to the answering step, where each item is checked line by line against the source text. When knowledge bases are associated, only knowledge bases that share the same vector model can be selected together. Cross-model association is not available. Check the identifier first and exclude anything that does not match; do not run a cross-model search to compare missed recalls.
The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold. It does not carry permission isolation or entity isolation. Retrieval on its own does not constitute authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise: the source material reads "The East China warehouse inventory snapshot dated 10 March 2025 shows SKU-A transferable quantity of 120 units, sourced from the WMS export of the same day" and "Store B submitted a transfer request on 11 March 2025 for 30 units of SKU-A, status pending review". The draft sentence to be judged is "Store B's 30-unit transfer has been approved and can be dispatched from the East China warehouse". The request is at pending review. Pending review does not show a lack of operating permission, and it is not an approval.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check on this page | Basis and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Check the vector model identifier of each selected base; exclude those that differ | Only the same vector model can be associated together |
| Citation content output | Receive as an array; length of zero is allowed | An empty array is not a workflow error termination |
| Citation input handoff | Pass retrieval output to the answering step and check each item against source text | Answer and citation must share the same source |
| Citation display check | Use a traceable sample to check source display | Model thinking output does not replace source evidence |
| Material timeliness check | Test sources with the current version and a historical version | Whether a citation is adopted still depends on valid-version review |
| Minimum relevance | Set to 0.3 as the starting value for this hypothetical trial | A starting point only; adjust after comparing against sample hits |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. The input is a transfer request under pending review. Retrieval returns the source text of that request. Compare its status field, which reads pending review. If the draft sentence says approved, the output contradicts the source status.
- Forcing association of knowledge bases with different vector models. The input is two knowledge bases whose vector model identifiers differ. Compare whether the identifiers match. If association proceeds and citations are produced from it, that citation source cannot be associated together.
- Treating minimum relevance as a permission filter. The input is records from different stores inside one knowledge base. Compare the returned set before and after the filter. A judgment that lowering the threshold excludes unauthorized records has no basis.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source text and draft sentence above. Compare the status word in the draft sentence against pending review in the source. If the draft sentence contains approved, mark it as unsupported and keep the evidence gap open.
- Input two knowledge base identifiers whose vector model identifiers differ. Compare whether the two are the same. If they differ, exclude the association and record the actual observation. Do not infer missed recalls or redundant results.
- Input an explicit paper empty result []. Compare whether the downstream answering step receives it normally. If the downstream path still completes and gives a no-citation notice, the empty-result handoff matches the design. Do not claim that a fictional rule search always returns [].