What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream selection happens before a broadcast. The decision at this stage is whether a product can be offered and whether it suits on-camera demonstration. Copy drafting draws on supplier materials, testing-agency reports, platform negative catalogs, and historical return rates. These materials refresh weekly or per item, and a version gap commonly opens between the material on file and the finalized copy. The currently effective version of a supplier qualification, a test report, or a prohibited-item list determines which sentences may be written at all. Because sources and responsible parties are numerous, each promotional sentence needs line-by-line comparison against the source text.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge-base search node selects one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and outputs cited content as an array whose length may be zero. When no content is retrieved, the output path still runs. After retrieval results reach the answering step, drafted sentences and cited source text are compared item by item. Retrieval is a recall process; it does not perform permission judgment and does not isolate by business entity. A similarity score is not a category, entity, or authorization filter. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, which is a result-combination process. The citation ceiling is measured in tokens. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic retrieval or result reranking.
Hypothetical paper exercise: a supplier material states "this batch sample evaluation form number SP-2025-014, evaluation date March 10, 2025, evaluation conclusion: may proceed to trial broadcast display." The accompanying test report states "report number JC-2025-0312, issue date March 12, 2025, inspection items: appearance and labeling, conclusion: meets commissioned requirements." A draft sentence reads "this product has passed comprehensive quality inspection and is suitable for all-channel sales." Points to determine: the materials cover only appearance and labeling items; the issue date and the evaluation date are two separate periods; the subject, item scope, and sales scope in the draft sentence appear nowhere in the source text. The sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Setting relevant to this page | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Select one or more knowledge bases sharing the same vector model | Compare vector model identifiers of selected bases; exclude mismatched ones |
| Search mode | Semantic retrieval, full-text retrieval, or hybrid retrieval | Use full-text or hybrid for identifiers; use semantic for natural-language questions |
| Citation ceiling | Content ceiling measured in tokens | Starting point for this exercise: 3000 tokens, chosen as an estimate for one sample evaluation form plus a test-report summary; compare against actual returned length and adjust |
| Minimum relevance | Value from 0 to 1, effective only under semantic retrieval or result reranking | Compare against returned citations one by one and observe whether low-relevance fragments are filtered |
| Result reranking | Enabled when a rerank model is configured | Confirm whether a rerank model is configured; if not, this item does not execute |
| Cited content output | Array format, length may be zero | Use paper input [] to check downstream handling design |
Three common errors
- Treating a similarity score as a permission or entity filter. The score reflects only how closely content relates to the question; it does not determine which supplier or which qualification a material belongs to. Check: input a question unrelated to qualifications, compare returned citations against the authorized material scope, and observe whether out-of-scope content appears.
- Linking knowledge bases that use different vector models. The documentation requires the same vector model for joint linking. Check: compare each base's vector model identifier, determine whether identifiers match, exclude mismatched bases, and record the actual observation.
- Writing an unstated item scope as passed. The sample source text lists only appearance and labeling, while the draft sentence claims comprehensive inspection. Check: compare the draft sentence against source text field by field, comparing subject, items, period, and scope; record fields that do not appear as unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Citation source check. Input the supplier material and test report text from the sample, compare whether returned citations include records SP-2025-014 and JC-2025-0312, and observe whether the citation array corresponds to the source text item by item. If an empty array is returned, record that observation and check whether the materials have completed training.
- Draft sentence determination check. Input the draft sentence "this product has passed comprehensive quality inspection and is suitable for all-channel sales," compare its item scope against the appearance and labeling items in the source text, and compare its sales scope against the unstated status in the source. The sentence meets the supported condition only when the source text contains the corresponding items and scope wording; under the current sample it is unsupported.
- Empty-result handling check. Use paper input citation array [] to check the downstream answering step's design and observe whether the downstream continues along the empty-citation path. This check addresses handling design and does not assert that any query necessarily returns an empty array.
The determinations above are paper reasoning only; no retrieval, deployment, or review action was actually performed. Where material versions, authorization scope, or effective status are missing, they remain pending verification.