What the documents look like
Store counts and loss control work on book-to-physical differences and shrinkage. Supplier settlement is handled elsewhere, so this category does not process supplier payables. The working materials come from POS inventory, WMS, camera systems and SB/T count practice. The people involved are loss-prevention staff, store warehouse keepers and finance reviewers. Four document types carry the evidence: the count sheet, the variance analysis, the write-off approval and the camera review log. A count sheet records book quantity and physical quantity. A variance analysis records the SKU-level investigation. A write-off approval records the disposal decision. A camera review log records viewing time and scope. In order fulfillment and after-sales answers, these documents act as source evidence. When an answer cites a count difference or a write-off approval, that answer has to point back to the original record. The brief gives monthly and quarterly update frequencies. This page does not turn those frequencies into batch synchronization or real-time mechanisms.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can select one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model. It outputs cited content as an array, and the length may be zero. When nothing is found, the output path still runs. That cited content then goes to the answering step, where each answer sentence is checked against the cited source text. The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold. It applies only during semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. It does not perform permission filtering or entity isolation. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF. Reranking produces a score from 0 to 1. The citation limit is controlled by tokens, not by top k. Image retrieval needs image input and the matching model capability. Reranking needs a rerank model and is enabled by configuration. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together; check the identifier and exclude those that do not match, then record what was actually observed.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a store count sheet dated 31 March 2025 reads in three sentences — "Store: Chengbei branch; count date: 31 March 2025; account: merchandise inventory. Book quantity 120 units, physical quantity 108 units, variance -12 units. Variance reason field: pending verification." A variance analysis record from the same month reads in one sentence: "This SKU variance has been forwarded to the write-off approval process; the write-off document number is still to be supplied." Draft sentence to be judged: "The store's March count variance has been confirmed as a write-off, and approval is complete."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Assumed starting point for this exercise and reason | Comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Only the count sheet base and the variance analysis base, marked as sharing one vector model | Check the vector model identifier and exclude any base that does not match |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval, because identifier-style queries need full-text recall | Compare against a semantic-retrieval-only result |
| Citation limit | Assumed starting point of 3000 tokens, chosen to hold several count sheet fragments | Compare against the total citation length of this sample |
| Minimum relevance | Assumed starting point of 0.3, chosen to filter low-relevance fragments | Compare against semantic retrieval or rerank scores |
| Cited content output | Array, length may be zero | Observe whether the downstream step continues on an empty array |
| Answer-to-citation check | Compare each answer sentence against the cited source text | Check whether each answer sentence has a matching citation |
Three common errors
- Treating "forwarded to the write-off approval process" in the variance analysis as completed approval. The input is the variance analysis record. The comparison object is whether the write-off approval document contains a signature and an effective record. The observable result is that the approval document is absent or shows only a forwarding record, so the draft sentence "approval is complete" is not supported.
- Treating a pending verification reason as a confirmed write-off. The input is the variance reason field "pending verification" on the count sheet. The comparison object is the confirmation conclusion in the write-off approval document. The observable result is that the reason field carries no confirmation conclusion, so the draft sentence's "confirmed as a write-off" lacks a basis.
- Using a retrieval hit in place of an authorization judgment. The input is the citation array returned by search. The comparison object is whether the handover request states an authorization status. The observable result is that citations exist while the authorization field is missing, and a retrieval result does not constitute authorized execution.
How to verify the setup
- Input the count sheet text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare the draft sentence "confirmed as a write-off, and approval is complete" against whether the write-off approval document contains a signature and an effective record. The observable result is that when the approval document is absent, the sentence is not supported, and the evidence gap must be recorded.
- Input the variance analysis record "This SKU variance has been forwarded to the write-off approval process; the write-off document number is still to be supplied." Compare it against the signature status of the write-off approval document. The observable result is that a forwarding record alone does not show completed approval, and it also does not show a lack of operating permission.
- Input a paper empty array []. Compare whether the downstream answering step continues on an empty citation set. The observable result is that the downstream step continues and produces no cited source. This exercise does not claim that a fabricated rule search necessarily returns an empty array.
All judgments keep the same subject, the same period and the same field. Where a value is not stated, or where only a related-stage record exists, the result is recorded as unsupported or pending verification.