What the documents look like
Cross-border platform settlement and foreign exchange work concerns the collection of funds from orders that have already been completed. It does not handle fraud or chargeback disputes, which belong to payment risk control. The materials in this category come from the platform settlement center, bank statements, payment provider back offices, and ERP orders. The documents handled day to day include platform settlement statements, exchange rate tables, service fee invoices, and collection reconciliation sheets.
These materials update on a weekly or monthly rhythm. A single order's deductions, exchange rate differences, and service fees can therefore appear across several documents covering different periods. A product information and selection question in this setting has to answer three things: which material a conclusion cites, what the valid scope of that material is, and whether the citation covers the fields required for the judgment. The currency of a document directly determines whether a citation is usable, because a historical version and a current version may give different values for the same field.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
Citation tracing requires every conclusion in an answer to be traceable to specific source text. The knowledge base search node outputs cited content as an array, and the length may be zero. An empty array does not mean the workflow has errored out or terminated. The retrieval output must be handed to the answering step, where the answer is checked item by item against the cited source text.
Semantic recall and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation functions. A retrieval action by itself does not constitute authorization. When associating knowledge bases, first verify the selected knowledge bases and their material versions. Only knowledge bases sharing the same vector model may be associated together. Knowledge bases with different vector models cannot be associated together; verify the identifier, exclude those that do not meet the condition, and record what is actually observed. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, which is a fusion process and not a standalone switch that can be turned on. Reranking requires a model and must be enabled according to configuration. Image retrieval requires the corresponding image input and model capability. The optional paths shown in the overall document flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them. The citation limit is measured in tokens, and the minimum relevance is a filter threshold. Neither constitutes a permission filter.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: Material A is a platform settlement statement stating "settlement period 1 June 2024 to 30 June 2024, order number S-001, deduction amount RMB 1200, service fee RMB 36". Material B is an exchange rate table for the same period stating "June 2024 USD to RMB central parity 7.10". The draft sentence to be judged is "Order S-001 in the June 2024 settlement had a deduction of 1200 yuan and a service fee of 36 yuan, and the exchange was completed at the 7.10 rate". Checking requires confirming whether the subject, period, and fields of Material A and Material B are consistent. Material B only provides an exchange rate value and does not state whether this order actually executed an exchange. The phrase "exchange completed" in the draft sentence lacks material support. This sample is a paper exercise and does not represent any real customer or actual test.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select a settlement statement library and an exchange rate table library verified to share the same vector model | Knowledge bases with different vector models cannot be associated together; verify the identifier first, then exclude those that do not meet the condition |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Settlement statements contain precise fields such as order numbers, and exchange rate tables contain numeric fields; semantic and full-text recall each have applicable areas |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point of 2000 tokens | Compare against the combined original length of Material A and Material B, to confirm the fields required for the judgment can be cited in full |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point of 0.5 | Compare against the item-by-item check results of the cited source text, and observe whether fragments containing judgment fields are filtered out |
| Result reranking | Enabled according to configuration, using an available rerank model | Hybrid retrieval produces many candidates; the rerank score can be used for filtering, and the model must be confirmed as configured |
| Question optimization | Decide whether to enable based on actual effect | Continuous follow-up scenarios can improve retrieval effect; a single clear question can be left off to reduce latency |
These values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, not official defaults, and must be adjusted after comparing against the original material length and the check results.
Three common errors
- Treating a semantic recall score or a relevance score as a permission filter. The input is Material A and Material B; the comparison object is the cited content returned by retrieval against the current operator's accessible scope; the observable result is whether the cited content exceeds the authorized scope. A relevance score reflects similarity only and does not reflect access permission.
- Associating knowledge bases with different vector models and then inferring a runtime result. The input is the identifiers of two knowledge bases with different vector models; the comparison object is whether the identifiers are consistent; the observable result is whether the condition for joint association is met. Those that do not meet the condition should be excluded and recorded, and no cross-model retrieval is performed to compare missed recalls.
- Treating the exchange rate value in Material B as direct proof that the exchange was completed. The input is the original text of Material B and the draft sentence; the comparison object is whether Material B states the exchange execution status of this order; the observable result is whether "exchange completed" in the draft sentence obtains material support. When the execution status is not stated, that conclusion remains pending verification.
How to verify the setup
- Citation source check. The input is the original text of Material A and Material B; the comparison object is the order number, period, deduction amount, service fee amount, and exchange rate value cited in the answer; the observable result is that the cited content matches the original text field by field, and conclusions in the draft sentence that go beyond the original text scope are marked as pending verification.
- Empty result handoff check. The input is the paper input []; the comparison object is the downstream answering step's handling design for an empty citation array; the observable result is that the downstream step does not treat the empty array as a workflow error, and does not generate a conclusion without a source.
- Material currency check. The input is the current version and a historical version of Material A; the comparison object is the value of the same field in the two versions; the observable result is that the version cited by the answer matches the valid version required for the judgment, and when the versions differ, the evidence gap is recorded.