What the documents look like
Channel diversion review addresses regional and price order. It does not handle rebate amounts, which belong to rebate accounting. The working materials come from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records and market inspections. In order fulfillment and after-sales question answering, the everyday documents are diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices and investigation photographs. Each carries a specific evidentiary role. A complaint form states the complained-against party and the code range. An anti-counterfeit code record states the query time and the code value. A shipment record states the batch and destination. An inspection photograph states the shooting time and location.
These materials reach the citation tracing step as source evidence rather than as conclusions. The complaint form identifies an object under complaint. The code record identifies who queried a code and when. The shipment record identifies where a batch was sent. Authorization status is a separate fact that must appear in its own field if it is to be cited. A diversion complaint, a code query and a shipment record together support an inquiry about regional flow. They do not by themselves establish that a sale was authorized, because authorization is not stated in them.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model. Its citation output is an array, and the length can be zero. When no content is retrieved, the output path still runs through. The citation cap is controlled in tokens, not by a top-k item count. The minimum relevance value applies only under semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used, and it acts as a filter threshold. It does not perform subject, object or permission isolation. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, and reranking depends on a rerank model and the configured setting. Image retrieval requires image input and the corresponding model capability. Search output must be handed to the answering step and checked line by line against the source text.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. Source text one: "Complaint form CX-2025-0417 states that the complained-against store is authorized dealer A in the East China region, involving code range FZ-8801 to FZ-8850, complaint date 17 April 2025." Source text two: "The anti-counterfeit code record shows that code FZ-8823 was first queried on 10 April 2025 by dealer B in the South China region, with the query location recorded as South China." Source text three: "The distributor shipment record states that code range FZ-8801 to FZ-8850 was shipped on 28 March 2025 to dealer B in the South China region, with a receipt date of 2 April 2025." Draft sentence to be assessed: "The above code range was first shipped by dealer A in the East China region, and the sales activity of store A has obtained brand authorization." The check points are whether the code range, the first-query party, the shipment destination and the authorization status are consistent within the same fields.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Diversion complaint form base, anti-counterfeit code record base | The two bases must share the same vector model identifier; check the identifier before associating |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | The code range is an exact number; compare the merged RRF result against semantic retrieval alone |
| Citation cap | 3000 tokens as this trial's starting point | Estimated from complaint and code record source length; compare citation completeness against 2000 and 4000 |
| Minimum relevance | 0.4 as this trial's starting point | Compare against 0.3 and 0.5 and observe whether low-relevance fragments enter the citation |
| Result reranking | Enabled | When candidates are numerous, filter by rerank score; compare ordering against the disabled setting |
| Citation output handling | Line-by-line check of answer against cited source | Check whether each answer sentence has a corresponding source in the citation array |
Three common errors
- Treating the minimum relevance value as a permission or subject filter. Input the complaint form and the anti-counterfeit code record above, compare whether the citation content still includes the South China dealer B record, and observe whether unrelated-party records still appear after the threshold is adjusted. A relevance score does not perform entity isolation.
- Writing a pending state as granted authorization. Input the draft sentence phrase "the sales activity of store A has obtained brand authorization," compare whether the materials contain an authorization record with the same subject, the same period and the same field, and observe whether only complaint and shipment evidence exists. A pending review does not establish the absence of permission, and an unstated authorization is unsupported.
- Forcing association of knowledge bases with different vector models. Input two bases whose vector model identifiers differ, compare the identifier fields, and observe whether they can be associated together. Check identifiers only and exclude non-matching bases; do not run a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source texts above and the draft sentence. Compare the first-shipment party in the draft sentence with the receiving party in the shipment record, and observe whether both point to the same dealer. If they point to different dealers, the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Input code FZ-8823 and the anti-counterfeit code record. Compare the first query time and location with the shipment destination, and observe whether the query location matches the shipment region. Record the actual observation without presupposing an outcome.
- Input an empty citation array []. Compare whether the downstream answering step handles it as zero citations, and observe whether the output path runs through. Use this as a paper input to check the downstream design; do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty array.