Livestream violation appeals: retrieval for product questions

Review retrieval for product questions in Livestream violation appeals. Check document scope, failure paths and source evidence through controlled tests.

What the documents look like

Livestream violation appeals address penalties that have already been issued, so the work is a retrospective review of an evidence chain. Materials come from the platform violation centre, livestream replays, customer service records and the product qualification library. Typical documents include violation notices, livestream recordings, product qualification files and appeal statements. Updates are irregular and cluster after each violation.

For product information and selection questions, retrieval has to pull content about product qualifications, the facts of the violation and the basis for a selection decision. Materials commonly carry fields such as product name, qualification number, violation timestamp and penalty type. Retrieval faces mismatches between the wording of a violation notice and the wording of a qualification file, differences between spoken claims in a livestream recording and the scope marked on a qualification file, and draft appeal statements that need to cite specific evidence fragments.

Constraints at the retrieval step

The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together; check the vector model identifier first and exclude the ones that do not match. Retrieval output is an array of references, and its length can be 0. When nothing is found, the output branch still runs.

Semantic retrieval, full-text retrieval and hybrid retrieval suit different inputs. Numbers, model designations and proper nouns fit full-text or hybrid retrieval. Natural-language questions fit semantic or hybrid retrieval. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, then applies ReRank for a second ordering. The minimum relevance value takes effect only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used; it is a filter threshold, not the final ordering rule. The reference limit is measured in tokens and caps how much content a single search can cite. Question optimisation handles coreference resolution and question expansion, and it adds one model call.

Retrieval does not carry authorisation duties. The knowledge base search returns reference content; it does not judge whether materials handed over during operations are in an executable state. A pending appeal request does not amount to approval, and an unsigned termination document does not amount to a completed termination.

Hypothetical paper exercise sample: one source document reads "Violation notice number V-2024-0312, penalty target is a certain face cream of shop A, violation reason is expired product qualification, penalty date is 12 March 2024." A second source document reads "The product qualification file shows the filing validity period for this face cream ends on 28 February 2024." The draft sentence to be assessed is "This face cream was within its qualification validity period on 12 March 2024." This sample is used to check whether retrieved content can support that draft sentence.

Configuration and implementation checks

Configuration itemHypothetical starting value for this exerciseReason and comparison method
Associated knowledge basesAssociate only the violation notice base and the product qualification base that use the same vector modelCheck the vector model identifier first, exclude bases on other models, and do not run cross-model retrieval
Search modeHybrid retrievalViolation notices carry numbers and qualification files carry natural-language description; compare the semantic path and the full-text path
Reference limitHypothetical starting value of 3000 tokensTest with real materials of different lengths to see whether content stays complete, and compare against 2000 and 4000
Minimum relevanceHypothetical starting value of 0.4Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, observe how filtered references change, and compare against 0.3 and 0.5
Question optimisationEnabledCompare the original question and the optimised question across multi-turn follow-ups, and check whether the subject has been altered
Result rerankingEnabledWhen candidates are numerous, compare ordering before and after reranking and observe whether the score can be used for filtering

Three common errors

  1. Treating the minimum relevance value as a permission or entity filter. That value is a similarity filter threshold and does not exclude unrelated business lines or unauthorised records. Retrieved content still needs a manual check of whether the material falls within the accessible scope.
  2. Describing RRF as a switch that can be turned on. RRF is the fusion process for multiple result paths inside hybrid retrieval, not a standalone configuration item. Hybrid retrieval and result reranking have different enabling conditions.
  3. Treating a pending appeal request as already approved. A pending review does not show that operating permission is missing, and it does not constitute approval. Signing, reaching an agreement and a contract taking effect are three distinct facts.

How to verify the setup

  1. Enter the violation notice text and the product qualification text from the hypothetical sample, then compare whether the retrieved references contain both the penalty date and the qualification validity date. If the returned content contains only one of the two, record it as an incomplete recall.
  2. Enter the draft sentence to be assessed, "This face cream was within its qualification validity period on 12 March 2024", and compare the qualification validity date against the penalty date in the retrieval results. If the qualification validity end date falls earlier than the penalty date, the draft sentence is not supported.
  3. Enter a clearly non-existent number, such as "V-9999-0000", and observe whether the returned reference array has a length of 0. If non-empty content is returned, record it as pending verification. When an empty result is passed downstream, the design must not claim that a query against a fictional rule is guaranteed to return an empty array.