What the documents look like
Livestream violation appeals address penalties that have already been issued. The working materials are the violation notice, the livestream recording, the product qualification file and the appeal statement. In the order-fulfillment and after-sales question task, citation tracing answers one question: can a statement about shipping time, refund conditions or after-sales responsibility be matched to wording in a checkable source document.
These materials are updated irregularly and each violation forms its own record set. The same order may therefore have fulfillment statements tied to more than one material version, so any comparison has to name the version in use.
The main data sources are the platform violation center, livestream replays, customer-service records and the product qualification library. The fields and validity ranges of these sources are not supplied on this page and remain unknown. Comparison work proceeds from the material actually obtained.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and it outputs cited content as an array whose length may be zero. When the citation array is empty, the output path still completes. This is existing node behavior and does not indicate that the retrieval system raised an error or that a business request was rejected.
Retrieval and authorization are separate steps. A retrieval hit means the record entered the citation array; it does not mean a refund, replacement or compensation for that order has been approved. Forms collect entered values, and business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each require their own downstream implementation. This page does not assume scheduled triggers or hidden controls.
Similarity and minimum relevance are filter thresholds and do not perform permission or entity isolation. Knowledge bases with different vector models cannot be associated together. During comparison, check the knowledge base identifier first, exclude those that do not match, and do not run cross-model retrieval to compare recall differences.
Hypothetical drill sample
Source text for comparison (fictional):
"Order A-2201 submitted a refund request on 12 March 2026, and the customer-service record shows the request status as pending review. The product qualification in the qualification library is valid from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026."
One draft sentence to be judged:
"The refund request for order A-2201 has passed review, and the product qualification is within its validity period."
The source states the refund request status as pending review, while the draft sentence states it as passed review. Both address the same field of the same order, and the two values are mutually exclusive, which makes them contradictory. The qualification validity period agrees with the draft sentence, but a valid qualification does not by itself support a refund approval. This sample only illustrates the comparison method and does not represent any real order or actual handling outcome.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Include only appeal-material bases whose vector model identifiers match | Compare identifiers one by one; exclude mismatched bases and do not associate them together |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Compared with semantic retrieval and full-text retrieval; numbered and status fields need keyword hits |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point of 3000 tokens for this drill | Set after comparing average material fragment length; this is a hypothetical value, not an official default |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point of 0.5 for this drill | Compared with the number of returned items when no threshold is set, to observe whether noisy fragments decrease |
| Question optimization | Enabled for multi-turn follow-up scenarios | Compared with a single clear question; question optimization adds one model call |
| Result reranking | Enabled when candidates are numerous | Compared with ordering produced by RRF fusion alone |
RRF is the fusion process for multiple retrieval paths in hybrid retrieval and is not configured as a standalone switch. Thinking budget is a model thinking-strength setting and is a different field from the citation token limit; the two cannot substitute for each other.
Three common errors
- Writing a pending-review status as passed review. The input is the source text and the draft sentence; compare the values of the same field for the same order, and treat mutually exclusive values as a contradiction that must be corrected to pending review or marked as needing verification.
- Treating a retrieval hit as completed authorization. The input is the citation array and a handover request; compare the authorization status declared in the request with the status actually recorded in the material, and record it as unsupported when the material does not state authorization.
- Treating qualification validity as a fulfillment basis. The input is the qualification field and the after-sales conclusion; compare the fact each one points to, since a valid qualification and an approved refund are different facts and cannot be derived from each other.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source text and draft sentence from the hypothetical sample, compare the refund request status field, and when the draft sentence contains "passed review" while the source states "pending review", judge it as a contradiction and output a revision note.
- Input a handover request, compare the authorization status declared in the request with what the material records, and when the material does not state authorization, output "unsupported" rather than a negative conclusion.
- Use a paper input of an empty citation array
[]to check the downstream design and observe whether the downstream continues processing on an empty array; do not claim that retrieval under a fictional rule necessarily returns an empty array.
The checks above are paper reasoning only. They were not executed in a real system and do not constitute any handling conclusion for an order, approval or refund.