What the documents look like
Fresh-food supplier claims pursue receiving-quality responsibility and exclude a store's natural shrinkage. That boundary keeps the tracing object on batch receiving records and quality exception forms; near-expiry markdown records stay outside this page's scope. The main data sources are the quality inspection system, WMS receiving, supplier contracts and financial reconciliation. Daily documents include quality exception forms, photo evidence, deduction notices and claim reconciliation statements. The per-batch and monthly update rhythm means one batch can carry a quality conclusion recorded at receiving time and a deduction basis recorded at monthly reconciliation time. Citation tracing must present the document version and its corresponding period together, because the two sides of a dispute can otherwise cite records from different points in time. Typical roles are fresh-food procurement, quality inspection and supplier business staff. The consequence of error is supplier dispute, absorbed bad-goods cost or interrupted supply, so an answer must point back to source text rather than state a conclusion alone.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model; bases whose vector model identifiers differ cannot be associated together. The search output is an array of citations whose length may be zero, and the downstream chain still runs when that array is empty. Search results are not an authorization credential. A similarity score does not perform subject isolation or permission filtering, and the minimum relevance value is a filtering threshold rather than a means to exclude records the requester is not entitled to see. Hybrid search merges multiple result paths through RRF. Re-ranking requires a re-rank model and must be enabled in settings. Image retrieval requires image input and the relevant model capability. These paths are not fixed steps executed on every request.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material reads, "The receiving record YS-0312-07 dated 12 March 2026 states that batch A spinach arrived at 200 boxes, quality inspection judged the proportion of wilted leaves to exceed the upper limit agreed in Appendix 3 of the contract, judged it unqualified, and recommended a deduction." It continues, "The claim reconciliation statement SC-0331 dated 31 March 2026 states that the deduction amount for batch A is pending supplier confirmation, with status pending review." The draft sentence to be judged is, "Batch A spinach has completed the deduction as unqualified, and the supplier has confirmed." The comparison object is the deduction status of the same field for the same batch. The source records only pending supplier confirmation and pending review. The draft advances a pending review into a completed deduction and a confirmed status, which the source does not support. The authorization boundary is that procurement and quality inspection may initiate the check, while deduction execution and supplier confirmation must be implemented by their respective systems.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Quality inspection base and contract base; check vector model identifiers first | Association requires matching identifiers; compare against a base with a differing identifier and exclude it |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Batch numbers and natural-language questions coexist; compare against semantic search alone |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting value 0.3 for this drill | Compare recalled item counts at 0.2 and 0.4 to observe filtering strength |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting value 2000 tokens for this drill | Compare citation completeness at 1000 and 3000 |
| Result re-ranking | Enable when a re-rank model is available | Compare ordering against the disabled state and record the actual observation |
| Citation handoff | Pass each search output item to the answer step | Check answer and citation consistency against the sample source text |
Three common errors
- Writing a pending review as a completed deduction. The input is the sample reconciliation statement text; the compared field is deduction status; the observable result is that the draft contains "completed the deduction" while the source records only pending review, which fails the check.
- Treating a similarity score as permission filtering. The input is the same search request; the comparison is whether records outside the requester's entitlement appear; the observable result is that score level has no correspondence to record ownership, and the score does not perform subject isolation.
- Associating knowledge bases with different vector models. The input is the vector model identifier of two bases; the comparison is whether the identifiers match; the observable result is that differing identifiers prevent association, and only the identifier check conclusion is recorded.
How to verify the setup
- Citation source check. Input the sample receiving record and reconciliation statement text, compare the draft sentence field against the same field value in the source, and the condition is met when the draft matches the source and notes the pending review status.
- Empty-result handoff check. Input a clearly labelled paper citation array of [], compare whether the downstream answer step continues to execute, and the condition is met when the chain runs through and indicates that no citation content is present.
- Material timeliness check. Input the current and historical versions of the receiving record, compare the version and period the citation points to, and the condition is met when the citation notes the version and matches the period of this check; when the version relationship is not stated, record the gap.