What the documents look like
Livestream violation appeals address penalties that have already been issued, so the work is retrospective: reviewing the evidence chain that supports or contradicts a platform finding. The primary materials come from the platform violation center, livestream replays, customer service records, and the product qualification library. Documents handled day to day include violation notices, livestream recordings, product qualification files, and appeal statements. Product material and selection questions sit inside these materials: locating the relevant segment, supplementing evidence, and drafting the appeal reasoning. Material updates are irregular and occur each time a violation is raised. This shapes retrieval around historical records rather than live operational data.
Constraints at the vector indexes step
A knowledge base selected for associated retrieval must use the same vector model, so the actual model identifier and its input type need to be confirmed first. One original data block can be linked to multiple indexes, and the index content and the source content are checked separately. Index content should be complete and focused; retrieval coverage and index length are weighed together against the sample. Image retrieval additionally depends on whether image descriptions or image vectors were generated at ingestion, so the query side alone does not determine it. After a model or index change, compare cited source text using the same set of questions; vector scores alone do not support a performance commitment. The same-vector-model requirement for associated retrieval libraries does not extend to external systems such as business registration sites. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not enforce permissions or entity isolation.
Configuration and implementation checks
Hypothetical drill sample: the source text reads, "A violation notice dated 12 March 2025 states that a livestream room had its product sharing function suspended because product qualification was missing, and the appeal window runs seven days from delivery of the notice." The draft sentence under review reads, "The livestream room submitted complete qualification on 13 March and the function was restored." This draft sentence conflicts with the source text: the source only records the suspension and the appeal window, and does not record submission or restoration.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Vector model | Text model matching the associated library | Confirm the actual model identifier first; exclude non-matching models |
| Index content | Full violation notice plus product qualification fields | Compare with a title-only index for recall of source text |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Compare with semantic retrieval on numbered queries |
| Citation limit | 2000 tokens as a hypothetical starting point | Compare with 1000 for citation completeness |
| Minimum relevance | 0.3 as a hypothetical starting point | Compare with 0.5 for the number of irrelevant fragments |
| Result rerank | Enabled | Compare with the disabled state for candidate ordering |
These values are hypothetical starting points for this drill and are not official default values.
Three common errors
- Treating "submitted and restored" in the draft sentence as a verified fact. The source text records only the suspension and the appeal window; submission and restoration are unsupported, and the evidence gap must be recorded.
- Associating knowledge bases that use different vector models. The documentation requires the same vector model; confirm identifiers and exclude non-matching ones, and do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.
- Treating retrieval results as an authorization basis. Retrieval is not authorization; forms collect values, and business verification, approval, and external synchronization require separately connected system implementation.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the hypothetical source text and the draft sentence, and compare whether the draft sentence contains submission and restoration that the source text does not record. If the draft sentence asserts a state the source text does not contain, the assertion is unsupported and the gap must be retained.
- Enter the same set of questions and compare cited source text before and after an index change. If the cited source text covers the violation notice's subject, object, and period, the check condition is met; first-hit ranking and full recall are not guaranteed.
- Enter an empty-result continuation and check whether the downstream design accepts a citation array of length 0. If the downstream path completes, the condition is met; this does not assert that a fictional rule query will always return an empty array.