What the documents look like
Semi-managed sellers on Temu maintain overseas inventory and arrange shipment themselves, rather than supplying goods to the platform for the platform to fulfill. That difference shapes the document base for this page. Product declaration forms, overseas inventory tables, price declarations and platform fulfillment orders sit in the seller's own operations, and copy drafting draws its cited sources from the fields and versions of those documents. The brief states that updates run daily and per order. Inventory and price fields can therefore change between dates, so drafting has to lock the document version and date range it relies on.
The document set is not a single catalog. A product declaration form carries a declaring entity, a product object, a declaration status and a price declaration validity window. An overseas inventory table carries stock positions tied to a warehouse. A price declaration carries a validity period. A platform fulfillment order carries the fulfillment record for a specific order. For citation tracing, the relevant question is narrower than the whole document: which field, in which version, on which date, states what the drafted sentence claims.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
Whether a promotional sentence in drafted copy can stand depends on whether the corresponding document field states it. The knowledge base search node first checks the selected knowledge bases and the material version; only knowledge bases sharing the same vector model can be associated together. The node outputs cited content as an array, and the length can be zero. An empty array means the output path still runs; it does not mean the workflow terminated with an error. The retrieval output then passes to the answering step, where the answer is checked line by line against the cited source text.
Semantic recall and relevance scores are retrieval-stage values. They do not perform authorization or entity isolation. A relevance score is not a permission filter and does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Retrieval is not authorization. The same-vector-model association requirement applies to the selected knowledge bases in this node; it does not extend to requiring external systems such as business registration sites to share the same model.
A hypothetical paper exercise sample: a semi-managed seller operator drafts copy from a "Product Declaration Form (hypothetical version)". The source text reads: "Declaring entity: hypothetical supplier A; Product object: hypothetical storage box B; Declaration status is submitted, pending platform review; Price declaration validity: 1 March 2025 to 31 March 2025." The drafted sentence reads: "This product has passed platform review, and the price is valid long term." Checking compares the entity, object, status and validity fields against the drafted wording. The declaration status is pending review, while the drafted sentence says review has passed; these are mutually exclusive values in the same field, so that sentence is not supported. The validity window covers March only, while "valid long term" exceeds the stated range, so it is likewise not supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Comparison and notes |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select a knowledge base containing the Product Declaration Form (hypothetical version) | Check the selected bases and material version; only bases sharing the same vector model can be associated together |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Use full-text or hybrid recall for identifiers and status fields, with semantic recall as a supplement |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point of 2000 tokens | A starting point for this exercise; adjust after comparing against the sample source length |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point of 0.5 | Takes effect only in semantic retrieval or with result reranking; compare against recalled samples |
| Cited content output | Array, length may be zero | When the array is empty, the downstream step must be able to receive it; this is not treated as an error |
| Answer handoff | Retrieval output passes to the answering step | Check the answer against the cited source text line by line; fluency does not replace source evidence |
Three common errors
- Reading "submitted, pending platform review" as review passed. The input is the declaration form's status field; the comparison object is the drafted sentence "has passed review"; the observable result is that the two values are mutually exclusive in the same field, so the sentence is judged unsupported.
- Treating the price declaration validity window as a supply term. The input is the validity start and end dates; the comparison object is "valid long term"; the observable result is that the claim exceeds the stated range, so it is judged to need verification.
- Treating a retrieval score as an authorization basis. The input is the relevance value; the comparison object is the permitted scope of the copy; the observable result is that the score does not distinguish entities or permissions, so it cannot be used to release the copy.
How to verify the setup
- Compare the sample source text against the drafted sentence line by line. The input is the declaration form's entity, object, status and validity fields plus the drafted sentence; the comparison is between field values and sentence meaning; the observable result is that pending review and passed review are mutually exclusive, and the validity window does not match "valid long term", so both points are judged unsupported.
- Check empty-citation handoff using the paper input
[]. The input is an empty array; the comparison is against the downstream answering step's design; the observable result is that the path runs through without error, which confirms the empty result can be received. - Check the knowledge base identifiers and vector models. The input is the list of selected bases; the comparison is between each base's vector model identifier; the observable result is that non-matching bases are excluded and the actual observation is recorded, without running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
The above is a paper check design. No retrieval, review or publishing action was actually performed.