What the documents look like
Parcel handoff happens at the point where a package leaves the warehouse, and the central question is carrier scan responsibility. The documents in this category are electronic waybills, handoff manifests, pickup scan records, and exception item registers. They come from courier systems, WMS shipment records, carrier billing, and GB/T courier service standards. When these materials are used to draft product and marketing copy, retrieval has to answer whether a proposed sentence can be supported by a waybill field or a handoff record. Typical claims concern delivery time commitments, pickup status, and how exceptions are described. These materials update per batch and per day. This page does not derive batch synchronization, full synchronization, real-time behavior, or transaction-triggered mechanisms from that update frequency.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together. The check is to compare vector model identifiers and exclude those that do not match. A cross-model retrieval is not run to compare missed recalls.
Retrieval recalls candidate content through semantic search, full-text search, or hybrid search. Hybrid search merges multiple result paths through RRF. RRF is a fusion process, not a switch that is turned on. The minimum relevance score takes effect only under semantic search or when result reranking is used. It is a filter threshold. It is not a permission or entity isolation mechanism, and retrieval itself does not constitute authorization. The reference limit is measured in tokens. The output reference content is an array, and its length can be 0.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material reads, "This batch of electronic waybills was handed to the carrier branch on March 10, 2025. The handoff manifest lists 120 items. The pickup scan record shows 118 items scanned that day. The exception item register records 2 items pending verification." The draft sentence to be assessed is, "This batch of parcels has been fully picked up." The assessment requires the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The scan record shows 118 items, while the draft sentence claims all. That claim is unsupported. The 2 exception items pending verification are also not covered.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below centers on the sample above and lists only settings or implementation checks that the official documentation describes. The values are starting points for this hypothetical trial. They include the reason for the choice and the comparison object. They are not official default values.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason for the choice and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Waybill and handoff document base | Compare vector model identifiers across bases; exclude those that do not match |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Compare recall of the draft sentence against semantic search and full-text search separately |
| Reference limit | Hypothetical starting point of 800 tokens | Compare against the actual length of the handoff manifest and scan record; observe whether content stays complete |
| Minimum relevance score | Hypothetical starting point of 0.4 | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then compare filtering behavior against this threshold |
| Question optimization | Enabled for this trial | Compare the original question with the optimized question; check whether the subject was altered incorrectly |
| Result reranking | Enabled for this trial | Compare candidate order before and after reranking; the rerank score is used for filtering |
Three common errors
- Treating "118 items in the scan record" as "fully picked up." The input is the draft sentence and the scan record. The comparison is the item count field. When the scanned count is lower than the handoff count, the result should be unsupported. It cannot be judged as consistent.
- Treating the minimum relevance score as a permission filter. The input is an unrelated business question. The comparison is between its recall results and the authorized scope. A relevance score does not exclude unauthorized records. Retrieval results cannot replace an authorization decision.
- Forcing knowledge bases with different vector models into a joint association. The input is two knowledge bases with different vector model identifiers. After comparing the identifiers, those that do not match should be excluded. No further claims about missed recall or redundancy should be fabricated.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source text and the draft sentence "This batch of parcels has been fully picked up." Compare the scanned item count with the draft wording. When the scanned count is lower than the handoff count, the unsupported judgment is met, and the gap of 2 items pending verification is recorded.
- Input a question containing an exact identifier. Use full-text search and semantic search separately and compare the hits. Observe whether the identifier field can be recalled through the full-text path. A first-position hit is not guaranteed.
- Input a clearly labeled paper empty reference array []. Check whether the downstream design can accept an output of length 0. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval will necessarily return an empty result.