What the documents look like
Site selection and store opening happen before a store trades, so the work centres on lease and construction delivery rather than on supervising operating outlets. The daily materials are site evaluation forms, lease letters of intent, renovation budgets and opening schedules. Each of these carries strong single-store attributes: footfall around the trade area, map POI data, POS history by store type and landlord materials differ from store to store, update irregularly, and are handled per store.
For product data and selection questions, the material that matters is the precise identifiers and clause wording inside those documents: equipment model numbers, renovation material specifications, and how lease terms and rent-free periods are written. Site evaluation forms are mostly short structured fields, while lease letters of intent and renovation budgets run as long passages, and opening schedules hold many dates and milestone names. One document can contain both natural-language description and exact codes, so a single recall path rarely covers everything.
Constraints at the vector indexes step
Knowledge bases associated for retrieval must use the same vector model. Check the actual model and the input type first. One source data block can be linked to several indexes, and the index and the source text are checked separately. Index content should be complete and focused, and retrieval coverage against index length is weighed against the sample at hand. Image retrieval also depends on whether an image description or image vector index was generated at ingestion time; uploading an image on the query side does not fill an index that was missing at ingestion. After a model or index change, compare cited source text using the same set of questions. A vector score on its own does not promise an outcome.
Semantic recall and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity separation. The same-vector-model requirement for associated knowledge bases does not extend to business registration sites or other external systems. Knowledge bases with different vector models cannot be associated together; check the identifier, exclude the mismatched one, and record what was observed.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source text available for checking is three sentences: "The XX Road store site evaluation form records the lessee as A Chain Headquarters, the lessor as B Real Estate, an intended lease term of five years, a rent-free period of three months, and a signing status of pending review." "The renovation budget for this store lists a kitchen equipment model KX-200, quantity four units, with a quotation valid until 31 March 2026." "The opening schedule records a construction delivery milestone of 10 May 2026, with a status of not completed." One draft sentence to be judged is: "A Chain Headquarters and B Real Estate have reached a five-year lease cooperation for the XX Road store, and the three-month rent-free period has taken effect." This draft sentence is compared item by item against the source text above.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Value or practice in this page's sample | How it is checked and on what basis |
|---|---|---|
| Vector model of associated knowledge bases | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise is one shared vector model, because materials in this base are retrieved together; the model identifier is compared character by character against another base | The node requires associated knowledge bases to use the same vector model; check the identifier first |
| Index to source data mapping | Separate indexes for the site evaluation form and the lease letter of intent, with index and source text kept separately | One source data block can link to several indexes; check each separately |
| Index content selection | Model numbers, codes and dates are kept complete; long passages are focused on a single meaning | Index content should be complete and focused; coverage and length are weighed against the sample |
| Image index | This sample's materials are plain text; no image ingestion is involved | Image retrieval depends on whether an image description or image vector was generated at ingestion |
| Citation cap and minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting points for this exercise, adjusted after comparing cited source text against the same question set | Minimum relevance takes effect only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used |
| Result review method | After a model or index change, compare cited source text using the same question set | A vector score alone does not promise an outcome |
Three common errors
- Treating pending review as already effective. In the sample the lease letter of intent has a signing status of pending review, while the draft sentence states that a five-year lease cooperation has been reached and the three-month rent-free period has taken effect. Pending review does not show a lack of operating authority, and it is not the same as completed signing. Signing, reaching cooperation, and a contract taking effect are three distinct facts. The check compares the value of the same field: pending review and already effective are mutually exclusive values of that field, which makes the draft contradictory.
- Treating a quotation validity date as a supply period. The renovation budget shows a quotation valid until 31 March 2026, and that date constrains the quotation only. It does not state an equipment supply or delivery deadline. A delivery commitment written from it goes beyond the source text and is recorded as unsupported.
- Treating an incomplete milestone as completed. The opening schedule states that the construction delivery milestone has a status of not completed, so any wording that presents it as delivered or opened lacks evidence. The check compares the milestone status field, where not completed and completed are mutually exclusive.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source sentences above and the draft sentence, then compare the subject, object, status and period in the draft against the corresponding fields in the source text. When the draft says "have reached" or "has taken effect" while the source signing status is pending review, the result is a contradiction. When the draft only restates the pending review status, the result is consistent with the source. The expected result follows this rule; no live test is claimed.
- Input a query containing only the model KX-200, then compare whether the recalled content includes the source text in the renovation budget where that model appears. When the cited content matches the model and the quantity and quotation validity fields appear with it, the check condition is met. When the cited content is an empty array, record it as not recalled and carry the empty-result path into the downstream design check. Do not claim that a fabricated rule makes retrieval return empty.
- Input a cross-base retrieval request in which one base has a vector model identifier different from the sample base. Compare the two model identifiers, exclude the mismatched one, and record what was observed. The two bases are associated together only when their identifiers match. When the identifiers differ, record only the exclusion; do not run a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.
At operational handover, the authorization state of materials, actions and requests is checked separately. Retrieval results and values collected by forms do not constitute authorized execution. Business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.