What the documents look like
Platform listing compliance concerns the truthfulness of promotional statements and the display of qualifications. Parcel delivery sits outside this task. The working materials are product title tables, detail page assets, advertising prohibited-word lists, and quality inspection reports. These materials are refreshed weekly and at each new product launch. In copy drafting, the difficult moments cluster around checking absolute claims, comparing stated parameters against the physical item, and replacing non-compliant assets.
For citation tracing, this means each factual point in a draft title or detail sentence needs a corresponding source in the materials, together with a traceable location for that source. A sentence can be fluent and still unsupported. The drafting step records which material supports which claim; it does not decide whether a claim is legally permitted.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model. Its output is an array of cited content, and the array length may be zero. A zero-length array still completes the output path. Retrieval returns candidate material; authorization and business verification belong to downstream steps. Semantic recall and relevance values affect candidate ordering and filtering only. They do not perform entity isolation or permission checks.
Hypothetical paper exercise. Source text one: "Submitted sample name: folding storage rack; test item: static load test; conclusion: the tested item meets the commissioning requirements." Source text two: "This report is responsible only for the sample as received; the report validity period follows the commissioning agreement." Source text three: "The sample photograph matches the physical item; no obvious deformation observed." The draft sentence under review: "This storage rack has passed load testing and will not deform during long-term use."
The judgment requires the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The materials record a static load test conclusion and a sample-responsibility scope. They do not record long-term use condition. The draft sentence is therefore unsupported and needs either an added source or a rewrite. Source text three describes the sample at the time of inspection; it does not extend to long-term behavior.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting approach | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select only knowledge bases with the same vector model | Check the vector model identifier of each selected base; exclude any that do not match |
| Search mode | Choose semantic, full-text, or hybrid search according to material type | Prefer full-text search for part numbers, model codes, and proper nouns |
| Citation limit | For this hypothetical exercise, start with a small value because the sample materials are short | Compare against the actual content length of the sample materials, then adjust |
| Minimum relevance | For this hypothetical exercise, start with a middle value | Compare against the ranking behavior of returned results |
| Result reranking | Runs when a rerank model is available and the setting is enabled | Check the rerank score range and the number of candidates |
| Citation output | Array format; length may be zero | Use a paper input of an empty array to check the downstream handling design |
The citation limit is measured in tokens, not in a count of items. The minimum relevance value applies only under semantic search or when result reranking is used. It is a filtering threshold, not a final ordering rule. Reranking requires a rerank model and must be enabled; it is not an automatic step in every request. Image retrieval requires image input and model capability. The overall retrieval flow lists optional paths; not every path runs on every request.
Three common errors
- Writing a state that the materials do not record as a definite conclusion. Input: the three source texts and the draft sentence. Comparison: the phrase "long-term use" against the test items recorded in the materials. Observable result: the materials contain no field recording that condition, so the draft sentence is judged unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorization approval. Input: the citation array returned by search. Comparison: the cited content against each factual point in the draft sentence. Observable result: citations exist but contain no authorization or validity information, so the point remains pending verification.
- Associating knowledge bases that use different vector models. Input: the vector model identifiers of two knowledge bases. Comparison: whether the two identifiers match. Observable result: the identifiers differ, so the non-matching base is excluded and the observation is recorded.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three hypothetical source texts and the draft sentence. Compare each factual point in the draft sentence against the corresponding field in the source texts. The observable result is that "will not deform during long-term use" has no supporting text. When this condition holds, the point is judged unsupported.
- Input a paper empty array as the search output. Compare the downstream answer step's handling design for empty citations. The observable result is that the downstream step does not treat the empty array as an obtained source. When this condition holds, the downstream handling design is correct.
- Input the vector model identifiers of two knowledge bases. Compare whether the identifiers match. The observable result is that when the identifiers differ, the non-matching base is excluded. When this condition holds, the association scope is correct.
All three checks are paper reviews. No retrieval, deployment, approval, or business action has been performed. Where a document field is not provided, its value remains unknown. A pending request is not an approval, an offered option is not an execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.