What the documents look like
Central procurement and distribution question answering works from headquarters purchasing and delivery records. It does not examine store display. The main document sources are centralized procurement contracts, replenishment plans, distribution orders, and store requisition orders. ERP purchasing data, WMS records, store POS data, and supplier delivery data provide the supporting fields. This material updates daily or weekly, and that rhythm affects how citation timeliness is checked: the same product may sit at different stages in a procurement contract and in a replenishment plan. When the chain supply center and procurement managers use an answer, they need to keep contract clauses, replenishment quantities, and distribution execution records separate, and avoid applying a field from one stage directly to another.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and it outputs cited content as an array whose length may be zero. An empty array still completes the output path. Retrieval results do not perform authorization checks. The minimum relevance value only filters low-scoring content; it does not exclude unrelated business records or unauthorized records. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, reranking is an optional path, and image retrieval requires image input plus model capability, so not every request runs every path. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together; the identifier is checked and non-matching bases are excluded, with the actual observation recorded rather than an inference about missed or redundant results.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source text provided for checking reads "Centralized procurement contract CG-2024-118 states that the supply cycle for Category A goods is 30 days after signing; replenishment plan BH-2405 lists a Category A requirement of 200 units; distribution order PS-2406 shows 150 units of Category A actually dispatched." The draft sentence to be judged reads "Category A goods have completed all supply under the contract." That sentence merges the contract supply cycle, the replenishment plan quantity, and the distribution order dispatched quantity into one fact. Each field must be checked separately, and partial dispatch on the distribution order cannot support a statement that the contract was fully performed.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Relevant setting on this page | How the hypothetical sample is checked |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Only knowledge bases with the same vector model | Check the vector model identifier of the knowledge base holding Category A material and exclude non-matching bases |
| Citation limit | Maximum tokens cited per search | Set a hypothetical starting value for this exercise that covers the three source passages, then compare it with the actual cited length returned |
| Minimum relevance | A 0-1 value effective only under semantic retrieval or reranking | Set a hypothetical starting value that retains the three passages, then compare whether the returned citations contain all three |
| Search mode | Semantic retrieval, full-text retrieval, or hybrid retrieval | Use full-text or hybrid retrieval for contract number CG-2024-118 and check whether the number is matched |
| Result reranking | Requires a ReRank model and is applied according to settings | If enabled, check whether the rerank score retains the three passages; if not enabled, record that this path did not run |
| Cited content output | Array format, length may be zero | Use the paper input [] to check the downstream handling design, without claiming that a fictional rule search must return [] |
Three common errors
- Treating the 150 units dispatched on distribution order PS-2406 as full performance of the contract. The input is the dispatched field of distribution order PS-2406, the comparison object is the supply cycle clause of centralized procurement contract CG-2024-118, and the observable result is that the two differ in subject, period, and field, so the draft sentence "have completed all supply" is unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorization release. The input is the citation array returned by knowledge base search, the comparison object is the procurement manager's actual approval authority, and the observable result is that the cited content contains no authorization field, so retrieval does not constitute authorization.
- Associating knowledge bases built on different vector models. The input is the vector model identifiers of two knowledge bases, the comparison object is the same-vector-model requirement, and the observable result is that a non-matching identifier leads to excluding that base, with no cross-model retrieval comparison performed.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source passages from the hypothetical sample and the draft sentence "Category A goods have completed all supply under the contract," compare whether the draft sentence matches the source on the same subject, the same period, and the same field, and the observable result is that the dispatched quantity on the distribution order and the supply cycle in the contract belong to different fields, so the sentence is judged unsupported.
- Input the paper citation array [], compare whether the downstream answering step still completes, and the observable result is that the output path is not interrupted by an empty array, without inferring that a fictional rule search must return empty.
- Input the vector model identifiers of two knowledge bases, compare whether they match, and the observable result is that a non-matching identifier leads to excluding the association, recording the actual observation without asserting missed or redundant retrieval.