What the documents look like
Cross-border return refurbishment and resale handles reverse logistics and item condition. This differs from inbound replenishment management, which covers first-leg stock movement. Daily material arrives from overseas warehouse WMS, TikTok return centers, Amazon return reports, and item inspection photos. These sources produce return inspection forms, refurbishment records, scrap sheets, and resale listing checklists. Updates occur daily or per batch. One returned item may leave records with different fields at the inspection, refurbishment, scrap, and resale listing stages.
When after-sales answers cite sources, the objects to compare are these materials themselves. Retrieval results supply candidate original text. A retrieval hit does not confirm a return grade, a scrap decision, or resale listing eligibility.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Its output is an array of cited content, and the length may be 0. When no content is found, this output path still completes.
The answer step receives this array and checks each answer sentence against the cited original text. Minimum relevance takes effect only during semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. It is a filter threshold. Image retrieval, hybrid retrieval, and question optimization cause final results to pass through multi-path recall fusion, so ordering does not strictly follow a single vector similarity. The citation limit is measured in tokens and belongs to a different configuration than the thinking budget. The thinking budget cannot serve as the citation token limit. Retrieval itself does not judge authorization status. Pending review, signed, cooperation reached, and contract effective are separate facts. Fields not stated in the material remain unknown.
Configuration and implementation checks
Hypothetical drill sample: an overseas warehouse inspection team processes a return batch on March 10, 2025. The material original text reads: "Return number RT-2025-0310-07, item is a folding chair, inspection conclusion is minor surface wear, refurbishment team completed packaging replacement on March 12, resale listing checklist has not yet been submitted for review." The draft sentence to be judged is: "The folding chair has completed refurbishment and has been approved for resale listing." Material needed for the check must sit within an accessible knowledge base scope or a clearly designated manual input. When missing, record the gap.
| Configuration or check item | Use on this page | Check method and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge base | Determine retrieval scope | First check the selected knowledge base and material version; only the same vector model can be associated together |
| Cited content output | Receive retrieval results | The citation array length may be 0; an empty array does not mean the workflow errored and stopped |
| Minimum relevance | Filter low-relevance results | Takes effect only during semantic retrieval or result reranking; not a permission or entity isolation method |
| Citation limit | Control cited tokens | Measured in tokens, unrelated to thinking budget, does not indicate authorization over return records |
| Material timeliness check | Distinguish versions | Test sources with current and historical versions; adoption still depends on valid-version review |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. Input is the RT-2025-0310-07 material above. If the answer states "approved for resale listing," the comparison object is the field "resale listing checklist has not yet been submitted for review." Both share the same subject, period, and field, and the values are mutually exclusive. This is an unsupported judgment.
- Treating pending review as approved. The draft sentence claims "completed refurbishment and approved." The material states only that the refurbishment team completed packaging replacement. It does not state a review conclusion. This part should be recorded as pending verification. It cannot be written as a negation or a conflict.
- Replacing source checking with relevance. Using a similarity score to judge whether an answer is trustworthy, without comparing each cited original text item by item, causes the answer to drift from the material original text.
How to verify the setup
- Input the material original text and the draft sentence above. Compare "approved for resale listing" in the draft sentence with "has not yet been submitted for review" in the material. If the answer keeps a pending-verification marker and points out the evidence gap, the condition is met.
- Input the paper case where the retrieval output is an empty array []. Compare whether the downstream answer design still completes and prompts that no citation exists. If no error occurs and no source is fabricated, the condition is met.
- Input two knowledge bases with different vector model identifiers. Compare whether the identifiers are checked and non-matching ones excluded before association. If cross-model retrieval is not executed and the actual observation is recorded, the condition is met.