What the documents look like
Brand outlet operations exist to clear seasonal inventory. Product materials center on discount approvals, slow-moving inventory lists, price tags and gross margin worksheets. These materials update weekly or monthly, and the discount status or margin basis for the same SKU can change between one week and the next.
Product information and selection Q&A must answer whether a given material supports a specific conclusion. Source, version and scope of application form the objects of verification. The retrieval step returns a citation array, and its length may be zero. An empty array means the downstream chain still runs; it does not mean a business action has been completed. A discount approval is a manually signed matter. Retrieving a draft approval does not constitute approval.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
Citation tracing requires each answer statement to correspond to verifiable source text and to state the subject, object, status and effective scope of that material. Retrieval output must be carried into the answering step, and price, discount or margin conclusions in the answer must match the cited source text. Reasoning process and answer fluency cannot substitute for source evidence. Material timeliness requires distinguishing the current version from historical versions, and whether to adopt a citation still depends on review against the effective version.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: Material A is a slow-moving inventory list for a brand outlet store, date range March 1 to March 31, 2024, covering off-season women's apparel SKUs, with the status column marked "pending discount approval" and the authorization scope column blank. Material B is a gross margin worksheet for the same period, same store subject, same batch of SKUs, with the status column marked "calculation complete" and no approval conclusion recorded. The proposed draft sentence is: "This batch of SKUs has received discount approval and can be cleared according to the margin worksheet." Assessment point: Material A's status is pending approval; Material B only completed calculation. Neither material records an approval signature or effective date. The claim "has received approval" in the draft sentence is unsupported and remains a matter to be verified; clearing cannot proceed on this basis.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists settings or implementation checks already described in the official documents, tied to the sample on this page. Numeric values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise only, with reasons and comparison methods stated; they are not official defaults.
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select only one material library with the same vector model | Official text states multiple knowledge bases must share the same vector model to be associated together; first check the vector model identifier, exclude non-matching ones, and do not perform cross-model retrieval |
| Search mode | Semantic retrieval and full-text retrieval used together | Official text states hybrid retrieval merges results through RRF; used to check both identifier/SKU inputs and natural-language questions |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point 0.5 for this exercise | Official text states this is a 0–1 filter threshold effective only in semantic retrieval or with result reranking; compare with 0.3 and 0.7 to observe citation count changes; it is not a permission filter |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point 2000 tokens for this exercise | Official text states the citation limit is controlled by tokens; compare with 1000 and 4000 to observe the length of content available for citation in the answer |
| Result reranking | Hypothetically enabled for this exercise | Official text states reranking reorders candidates and produces a 0–1 score; compare with the disabled state to observe ordering changes |
| Question optimization | Hypothetically disabled for this exercise | Official text states this step adds one model call; compare with the enabled state to observe retrieval results for follow-up questions |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-approval status as approved. In the sample, Material A's status column reads "pending discount approval" and the authorization scope column is blank, while the draft sentence states "has received approval." Input is Material A's status field and the draft sentence; comparison is whether both refer to the same subject, same period and same field; the observable result is a status value mismatch, and the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Treating a completed calculation as an effective approval. In the sample, Material B's status column reads "calculation complete" and no approval signature or effective date is recorded. Input is Material B's status and the draft sentence; comparison is whether an approval field exists; the observable result is that the field is absent, which is an evidence gap.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorized execution. Retrieval returns a citation to Material A or Material B, and the draft sentence calls for clearing on that basis. Input is the cited content and the draft sentence; comparison is whether the citation contains an authorization-to-execute clause; the observable result is that no such clause is recorded, and retrieval does not constitute authorization.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source text of sample Material A and the draft sentence "This batch of SKUs has received discount approval." Compare Material A's status field with the approval wording in the draft sentence. The observable result is that the status is pending approval and no authorization scope is present, so the draft sentence is unsupported. The expectation is to record this gap and not execute clearing.
- Input the source text of sample Material B and the same draft sentence. Compare whether Material B contains an approval signature or effective date. The observable result is that only "calculation complete" is recorded, so the approval fact remains to be verified. The expectation is to preserve the evidence gap.
- Input a paper-based empty citation array [] and the downstream answering step. Compare whether the downstream step continues to run with zero citations. The observable result is that the chain still executes when citation length is zero. The expectation is that the downstream step does not generate an approval conclusion on this basis, and the actual observation is recorded without claiming that retrieval necessarily returns an empty array.