What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream selling takes place before broadcast. Its purpose is to decide whether a product can be sold and whether it is suitable for on-camera demonstration. The working documents for this stage are the sample evaluation form, the quality inspection report, the supplier qualification file, and the prohibited-sales list. These materials are updated weekly or per item, and the update rhythm belongs to the sourcing calendar rather than to the citation-tracing step described on this page.
During order fulfillment and after-sales question handling, a service or operations person needs to cite the conclusion recorded on a sample evaluation form, the conclusion recorded in a quality inspection report, the status recorded in a supplier qualification file, and the scope recorded on a prohibited-sales list. A buyer may ask where a product came from, whether it was inspected, and what after-sales conditions apply. Citation tracing requires that each source appearing in an answer can be checked against a specific document, a specific version, and a specific field.
The quality inspection report is the document that carries the detection conclusion and the issuing date. The sample evaluation form carries the evaluation conclusion, the display suitability judgment, and the evaluation date. The supplier qualification file carries a validity end date. The prohibited-sales list carries a list version, an effective date, and a scope statement. These four documents are separate objects. A conclusion recorded in one of them does not transfer to another.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model, and it outputs cited content as an array whose length may be zero. A zero-length output means the search path still completes; it does not mean the workflow has failed or terminated. Retrieval results need to be handed to the answering step, where each answer statement is checked line by line against the cited source text.
Retrieval or a form value collected at this stage does not constitute authorization, approval, or a database write. Finding a supplier qualification file does not mean the qualification passed review or that a partnership was reached. Semantic recall and relevance scoring do not perform permission filtering or entity isolation. The same-vector-model requirement applies to the knowledge bases associated in this node; it does not extend to external systems such as business registration websites.
Document timeliness needs to be tested with both the current version and a historical version of a source. Whether a citation is adopted still depends on review against the effective version. A pending request is not approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.
Hypothetical drill sample, stated as a paper exercise only: the sample evaluation form text reads "Sample number SP-2405, evaluation conclusion passed, suitable for livestream display, evaluation date 10 May 2024." The corresponding quality inspection report text reads "Report number QC-2405, detection conclusion conforms, issue date 12 May 2024." The supplier qualification file text reads "Qualification valid until 31 December 2024." The prohibited-sales list text reads "List version V3, effective date 1 May 2024, SP-2405 corresponding category not listed." The draft sentence to be judged reads "This product passed quality inspection and is on sale, so it can be purchased with confidence." The phrase "is on sale" does not appear in any of the four materials, and "can be purchased with confidence" exceeds the wording scope of the evaluation conclusion and the detection conclusion.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select knowledge bases containing the sample evaluation form, quality inspection report, supplier qualification file, and prohibited-sales list | Check that the vector model identifiers of the selected knowledge bases match; exclude those that do not match |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Report numbers and sample numbers need full-text recall; natural-language questions need semantic recall |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point of 2000 tokens | Compare against the length of a single quality inspection report conclusion paragraph so the conclusion is fully included |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point of 0.5 | Compare against whether the cited source text is included; observe whether low-scoring content is filtered out |
| Result rerank | Enabled | Secondary ordering when candidate results are numerous; enabled according to the setting |
| Question optimization | On | Completes references in multi-turn follow-up scenarios; decided by actual effect |
The citation limit is expressed in tokens, which is the documented unit. The minimum relevance value applies only under semantic search or when result rerank is used. Rerank is a secondary ordering step, and RRF is a fusion process for combining multiple recall paths, not a toggle.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval output as an authorization or approval result. The input is the cited content array returned by the search node. The comparison object is the validity end date field in the supplier qualification file against the current date. The observable result is whether that date is still in the future. A qualification file that is still within its validity period supports a statement about qualification status only; it does not support a statement that a partnership was reached or that a purchase is safe.
- Treating the phrase "is on sale" in the draft sentence as a verified fact. The input is the draft sentence "This product passed quality inspection and is on sale." The comparison object is the original text of the four materials. The observable result is whether "is on sale" or an equivalent statement appears in those materials. When it does not appear, the item is recorded as unsupported. The evaluation conclusion "passed" and the detection conclusion "conforms" are separate fields on separate documents; neither one states a sales status.
- Associating knowledge bases that use different vector models. The input is the vector model identifier of each selected knowledge base. The comparison object is whether those identifiers match. The observable result is that non-matching knowledge bases are excluded. Cross-model retrieval is not executed to compare missed recalls, and no runtime outcome is asserted for such a combination.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample evaluation form text from the hypothetical sample together with the draft sentence "This product passed quality inspection and is on sale." Compare whether "passed quality inspection" refers to the same subject, the same period, and the same field as the evaluation conclusion "passed" and the detection conclusion "conforms." The expected observation is that "passed quality inspection" has corresponding conclusion support, while "is on sale" has no supporting field in any of the four materials. The expected result is that the supported portion is retained and the unsupported portion is recorded as an evidence gap.
- Input the supplier qualification file text "Qualification valid until 31 December 2024" together with the draft sentence "can be purchased with confidence." Compare the qualification validity period against the wording scope of the draft sentence. The expected observation is that the validity period describes qualification status only and does not support the broader claim. The expected result is that the claim remains unsupported.
- Input the prohibited-sales list text "List version V3, effective date 1 May 2024, SP-2405 corresponding category not listed" together with a retrieval request. Compare the list version and effective date against the retrieval date. The expected observation is that the list version is effective at the retrieval date and that SP-2405 is not listed. If the search returns an empty array, use the paper input [] to check whether the downstream design accepts an empty result; do not claim that a fictional rule search necessarily returns []. The expected result is that the empty-result path is confirmed as a design check only, with no assertion about what any real query returns.