What the documents look like
Platform product title and detail compliance work handles advertising truthfulness and qualification display. It does not handle parcel delivery. The consequences of error are product delisting, complaints, and administrative penalty risk. The main data sources are the platform rules center, advertising law compliance checklists, the brand asset library, and third-party inspection agency reports. The documents handled day to day are product title tables, detail page assets, advertising prohibited-word lists, and quality inspection reports. The most time-consuming steps are checking absolute claims, comparing physical parameters, and replacing non-compliant assets. Data updates occur weekly and at each new product launch.
For citation tracing, the practical point is that a retrieved document is evidence material, not an executed business authorization. A quality inspection report, a brand authorization letter, and a prohibited-word clause each support a different kind of check, and each has its own scope of subject, object, period, and field. The retrieval step returns references; it does not verify them, approve them, or write them to any business system.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can select one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model for vector search. Its output is an array of references, and the length may be zero. A zero-length output still lets the downstream chain run; an empty array does not mean the workflow has errored or terminated.
Retrieval output must be handed to the answering step, where each answer sentence is compared against the cited source text. Retrieval itself is not authorization. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each require their own downstream implementation. The same-vector-model requirement applies to the knowledge bases selected for joint association. It does not extend to industry and commerce websites or other external systems.
Hypothetical drill sample. Source text one: "Quality inspection report for Brand A, batch A (report number QA-2024-001, dated 1 March 2024) states: samples of this batch meet the requirements of standard GB/T 12345-2020; tested items include formaldehyde content and pH value." Source text two: "Platform rules center, March 2024 edition of the advertising prohibited-word list, clause 7: cosmetic product detail pages must not use medical terms such as 'treatment' and 'repair'." Source text three: "Brand asset library authorization letter (number BR-2024-015, signed 10 February 2024) states: a certain store is authorized to use Brand A product images and description copy from 10 February 2024 to 9 February 2025." Draft sentence to be assessed: "This product uses the Brand A formula, has been tested by an inspection agency to meet national standards, and has the effect of repairing damaged skin." Handover request: "Please associate the above quality inspection report and brand authorization letter with the citation sources of the product detail page."
These three source texts are hypothetical drill material. They are not real customer records and were not actually tested.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this drill | Comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select the quality inspection report base and the prohibited-word list base | Check whether both bases use the same vector model; exclude any that do not |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Compare recalled content against semantic search and full-text search separately |
| Reference limit | Hypothetical starting value 2000 tokens for this drill | Compare reference completeness against 1000 and 4000 tokens |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting value 0.5 for this drill | Compare filtered result counts against 0.3 and 0.7 |
| Result rerank | Enable ReRank | Compare reference ordering against the disabled state |
| Reference output | Inspect the output array length | Compare against an empty array and the expected number of entries |
The reference limit uses tokens as its documented unit. Minimum relevance is a filter threshold, not a final ordering rule, and it applies only under semantic search or when result rerank is used. It is not a category, entity, or permission filter, and it does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. ReRank is a second-pass ordering of candidate text; RRF is the merge process for multiple recall paths, not a switch to be turned on. Image retrieval requires image input and matching model capability, and rerank requires an available model enabled by configuration; the optional paths in the overall flow diagram are not all executed on every request.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieved brand authorization letter as already-authorized use. Input is the authorization letter reference returned by retrieval. Compare the authorization period stated in the letter against the date of the draft sentence's use. Observe whether the authorization period covers the use date. The letter is evidence material; it does not constitute executed business authorization.
- Confusing the tested items of a quality inspection report with the efficacy claimed in the draft sentence. Input is the quality inspection report text. Compare the tested items stated in the report against the repair efficacy claimed in the draft sentence. Observe whether the report contains a test conclusion for that efficacy. When no efficacy test conclusion is stated, the claim is unsupported.
- Treating a prohibited-word list clause as an immediate finding that the draft sentence violates the rule. Input is clause 7 of the prohibited-word list and the draft sentence. Compare the prohibited terms stated in the clause against the wording used in the draft sentence. Observe whether there is a clearly mutually exclusive value in the same field. When the clause is not stated or only related-stage evidence exists, record it as pending verification.
How to verify the setup
- Input source text one and the draft sentence from the hypothetical drill sample. Compare the tested items stated in the quality inspection report against the repair efficacy claimed in the draft sentence. Observe whether the report contains a test conclusion for repair efficacy. Expected result: unsupported. No test is claimed to have been run.
- Input source text two and the draft sentence from the hypothetical drill sample. Compare the prohibited terms stated in clause 7 of the prohibited-word list against the wording used in the draft sentence. Observe whether there is a clearly mutually exclusive value in the same field. Expected result: pending verification. No test is claimed to have been run.
- Input source text three and the handover request from the hypothetical drill sample. Compare the authorization period stated in the brand authorization letter against the date of the association operation in the handover request. Observe whether the authorization period covers the operation date. Expected result: authorization status requires checking. No test is claimed to have been run.
For the reference output link, a paper input of an empty array can be used to check the downstream design. This does not assert that a fictional-rule search would necessarily return an empty array. For cross-model bases, first check the identifiers and exclude those that do not match; do not run a cross-model search to compare missed recalls. Missing evidence stays missing: a pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.