What the documents look like
This category covers the truthfulness of promotional claims and the display of qualification materials in product titles and detail pages. It does not cover parcel delivery. The working materials are the product title table, detail page assets, the advertising prohibited-words list, and quality inspection reports. Sources include the platform rules center, advertising compliance checklists, the brand asset library, and inspection agency reports. Updates arrive weekly and with each new product launch.
For order fulfillment and after-sales question handling, citation tracing means that a promotional conclusion in an answer can be traced back to a specific material version. During operational handover, retrieval output and form entries are information collection steps. Business authorization, approval, and external synchronization require separate system implementation.
Two features of this category shape the task. First, the materials carry versions and validity scopes, so an answer that cites a rule list or inspection report must point to the version in force. Second, the retrieval layer returns candidate content, and a person must compare each answer sentence against the cited original text. Retrieval does not grant permission to act on a product listing.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and it outputs a citation array whose length may be zero. An empty array means the downstream chain still runs; it does not establish that the workflow terminated with an error. Retrieval output is passed to the answering step, where each answer sentence is checked against the cited original text.
Retrieval does not enforce permission isolation. The minimum relevance value is a filtering threshold, not an entity or permission filter. Hybrid search merges multiple result paths through RRF, and RRF is a fusion process, not a switch. Image retrieval requires image input and model capability. Rerank requires a model and runs when configured. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together; the check is to compare identifiers and exclude those that do not match.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: on 10 June 2025, an e-commerce product operator prepares the title and detail page for a vacuum flask. The source text reads: "The advertising prohibited-words list (version 2025-06) states that titles must not use absolute terms such as 'safest' or 'number one'." The inspection report (number HYP-2025-0610, dated 5 June 2025) states: "This batch of vacuum flasks has a capacity of 500 milliliters and a heat retention duration of 6 hours." The draft sentence reads: "This product is the safest vacuum flask on the internet, with a heat retention duration of 12 hours." The question is whether the draft sentence can cite these materials as support.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select the product title table and the advertising prohibited-words list | Compare the vector model identifiers of both bases; exclude any that do not match |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | For number and model queries, observe whether full-text retrieval produces hits |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point of 2000 tokens for this exercise | Compare against the configured value and observe whether cited content is truncated |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point of 0.5 for this exercise | Compare against result scores and observe whether low-scoring content is filtered |
| Result rerank | Enable when a rerank model is available | Observe whether the rerank score is used for filtering |
| Citation display | Citation array output to the answering step | Check each answer sentence against the cited original text |
The citation limit starting point of 2000 tokens is chosen for this exercise because the sample materials are short; it is compared against the configured value to see whether cited content is truncated. The minimum relevance starting point of 0.5 is chosen to observe filtering behavior against result scores. These are exercise starting points, not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval output as authorized execution. Retrieval returns cited content only; business authorization and approval require separate system implementation. Check: observe whether retrieval output is used directly to change product status, and record what is observed.
- Treating minimum relevance as a permission filter. Minimum relevance is a filtering threshold and does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Check: examine whether retrieval results contain records belonging to other parties, and record what is observed.
- Treating RRF as a switch that can be turned on. RRF is the fusion process of hybrid search. Check: examine whether the configuration interface contains an RRF switch, and record what is observed.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input the draft sentence and the source text from the hypothetical exercise sample. Compare "safest" in the draft sentence against the prohibited expressions in the advertising prohibited-words list version 2025-06. If the draft sentence contains a term listed as prohibited, the claim is unsupported. Expected result: the draft sentence cannot cite that list as support.
- Verification two: input inspection report number HYP-2025-0610. Compare "heat retention duration of 12 hours" in the draft sentence against the "heat retention duration of 6 hours" stated in the report. A mutually exclusive value in the same field indicates a contradiction. Expected result: the draft sentence is inconsistent with the report.
- Verification three: input an empty array [] as retrieval output. Compare against the design of the downstream answering step. If the downstream design continues execution upon receiving an empty array, the acceptance condition is met. Expected result: an empty result does not trigger an error termination.
All three verifications are paper checks and do not claim that any test was actually performed. Where a material version is not stated, or only evidence from a related stage exists, the claim remains unsupported or pending verification. Missing evidence stays missing.