What the documents look like
Opening coaching transfers operating capability, which separates it from franchise filing disclosure. The traceable materials for this category are training sign-in sheets, opening checklists, SOP manuals and assessment results. These materials update per store, per month. In order fulfilment and after-sales question handling, a franchisee asks about training scheduling, whether materials arrived, or correction of an SOP action. A usable answer must point to the exact passage and version of one of those materials. This page does not derive batch synchronisation, full synchronisation, real-time or transaction-triggered mechanisms from the monthly update cadence.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can link one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and it outputs citations as an array whose length may be zero. When nothing is retrieved, that output path still completes. Retrieval is a recall action and does not perform authorisation judgement. The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold that applies only under semantic retrieval or result reranking, and it does not act as an entity or permission isolation mechanism. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF; that merge is a process, not a switch that is turned on. Image retrieval and reranking each require their own inputs and model capability. The optional paths shown in the document flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them.
Hypothetical drill sample: a chain training department holds an "Opening Coaching Handover Form (hypothetical number JZ-000)". The three source sentences are: "Store entity for this form: Sample Franchise Store A; coaching stage: pre-opening material verification; signature status on this form: awaiting regional supervisor signature; valid scope: only the March 2025 training batch." A draft sentence is under review: "This store's opening coaching handover has received supervisor signature confirmation, so subsequent order shipment can be arranged." Judgement requires the same entity, same period and same field. The source states the signature status is awaiting signature, while the draft sentence claims signature confirmation. The two values are mutually exclusive on the same field, which forms a contradiction. The shipment request also exceeds the authorisation boundary stated on that form, so it is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below concerns the sample above and lists only settings or implementation checks that the official documents describe.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Training and SOP material library | Check the selected libraries and material versions; confirm the vector model identifier matches before linking them together |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Sign-in sheet numbers and checklist items are exact terms, while semantic questions need vector recall, so both run in parallel |
| Citation limit | Set by tokens | The official documents control the citation limit by tokens; compare against candidate chunk length before adjusting |
| Minimum relevance | A value between 0 and 1 | Applies only under semantic retrieval or result reranking; compare against retrieved result scores |
| Result reranking | Enabled when a rerank model is available | Rerank scores run from 0 to 1; compare against vector scores before deciding the filter |
| Citation input handoff | Retrieval output passed to the answering step | Check each answer sentence against the cited source text; do not substitute answer fluency for source evidence |
Three common errors
- Treating awaiting signature as signed. The sample source states the signature status is awaiting signature. Judging the handover complete and arranging shipment on that basis takes the handover form text as input, compares the signature status field, and observes that awaiting signature and signed are mutually exclusive values.
- Using a relevance threshold as a permission decision. Minimum relevance only filters low-scoring results. Taking retrieval parameters as input and retrieved scores as the comparison, a conclusion that unrelated businesses or unauthorised records have been excluded has no basis.
- Linking knowledge bases across different vector models. The input is the vector model identifier of two knowledge bases, and the comparison is whether those identifiers match. If they do not match and the link is still executed, then inferring missed recall or redundancy fabricates a runtime result. The correct action is to check the identifiers, exclude the mismatched one, and record the actual observation.
How to verify the setup
- Citation tracing check. The input is the three source sentences of the sample handover form together with the draft sentence. Compare the draft sentence against the source on the same entity, same period and same field. When the status stated in the draft sentence differs from the source signature status, the judgement is unsupported and the evidence gap remains.
- Empty citation handoff check. Use a paper input of an empty array [] to check the downstream design. Observe whether the answering step still completes and states that no content was retrieved. Do not claim that a fictional rule search necessarily returns an empty array.
- Authorisation boundary check. The input is the valid scope stated on the sample and the shipment request in the draft. Compare whether the requested matter falls inside the authorisation scope of that form. When the request exceeds that scope, record it as pending verification; do not read pending review as a lack of operating permission.