What the documents look like
Livestream violation appeals deal with penalties that have already been issued. The material set centers on the violation notice, the livestream recording, product qualification files, and the appeal statement. In the product and marketing copy drafting step, the working question is whether a proposed sentence can be supported by the original wording of those materials. Sources include the platform violation center, livestream replays, customer service records, and the product qualification library. Updates are irregular and each violation triggers a fresh round of material collection, so the qualification version and the notice date for the same product may not sit at the same point in time.
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 length may be zero, which means the output path still runs even when nothing is retrieved. After retrieval results pass to the answering step, each promotional sentence in the draft needs to be checked line by line against the cited original text. Semantic recall and relevance scoring affect candidate ordering only; they do not carry permission or entity isolation. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, reranking requires a model and must be enabled in settings, and image retrieval requires image input and model capability. These paths do not all execute on every request.
Hypothetical drill sample: Material text one reads "This product qualification certificate number A-2024-0317, valid until March 16, 2025, applicable category household cleaner." Material text two reads "The April 2, 2025 violation notice states: during the livestream on April 1 from 20:00 to 21:00, the claim 'kills bacteria completely in seven days' was made without a corresponding test report." The draft sentence to be judged is "This product holds long-acting antibacterial qualification and can be promoted with confidence." The objects of comparison are qualification number A-2024-0317 and the April 2 notice. The judgment is whether the draft sentence is supported by these two original passages.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The search node returns cited content as an array whose length may be zero. A zero-length result is a valid output, not a workflow failure, so the downstream design must be checked for how it handles an empty citation set. When the draft sentence contains pronouns or omitted subjects, question optimization can rewrite the retrieval query before search, which changes what the retrieval step actually looks for.
Relevance thresholds filter low-scoring results and apply only under semantic retrieval or when reranking is used. A relevance score is not a category filter, an entity filter, or a permission filter, and it does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Retrieval is not authorization. Whether a cited passage may be used still depends on a valid-version review that sits outside the search node.
The same-field comparison rule matters here. A contradiction exists only when two values for the same field, for the same subject and the same period, are mutually exclusive. If a date or status is not stated, or only stage-related evidence exists, the correct label is unsupported or pending verification, not denied or conflicting. In the drill sample, the qualification validity ends March 16, 2025, while the notice concerns an April 1, 2025 livestream. These are different fields and different periods, so the draft sentence is not supported by the two passages; the material does not establish that the qualification covered the broadcast date.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Product qualification library and violation notice library | Both must share the same vector model; check the identifier first and exclude any that do not match |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Number A-2024-0317 is an exact query; compare hit results against full-text retrieval alone |
| Citation limit | 800 tokens | Hypothetical starting point for this drill; compare against 400 and 1200 for citation count and coverage |
| Minimum relevance | 0.4 | Hypothetical starting point for this drill; compare against 0.2 and 0.6 for retained item count |
| Question optimization | Enabled | The draft sentence contains a reference; compare whether the retrieval query is completed with a subject before and after |
| Result reranking | Enabled | When candidates are numerous, compare ordering before and after reranking and use the score for filtering |
Three common errors
- Treating a semantic recall score as an authorization basis. Observable error: concluding the draft sentence is usable because relevance is at or above 0.4. Check: input the draft sentence, compare the returned citations against material text one and material text two, and observe whether the citations contain the qualification number and the notice date.
- Merging the qualification validity period and the notice date into one period. Observable error: using a qualification valid until March 16, 2025 to support a livestream on April 1, 2025. Check: input both original passages, compare the field dates, and observe whether the same field shows mutually exclusive values. In this sample the fields differ, so the result is an unsupported claim and a retained evidence gap.
- Treating an empty citation array as a retrieval failure. Observable error: declaring the workflow interrupted when the citation length is zero. Check: input the paper-level empty array [], compare whether the downstream node still executes, and observe whether the receiving design holds.
How to verify the setup
- Verification one: input material text one, compare whether the returned citation contains "A-2024-0317" and "March 16, 2025," and treat the condition as met when the citation contains that number and date verbatim.
- Verification two: input the draft sentence to be judged, compare whether the citations contain "kills bacteria completely in seven days" and "without a corresponding test report," and treat the condition as met when the notice text is recalled and the draft sentence is not marked as supported. The expected result is that the draft sentence remains unsupported because the qualification period and the notice period are different fields with different dates.
- Verification three: input the empty array [], compare whether the downstream answering step receives zero citations and continues executing, and treat the condition as met when the path runs through without producing a fabricated source. All three are paper-level expectations and have not been executed.
These checks concern the search node's documented behavior, configurable fields, and manual review actions. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization require their own downstream implementation and are not established by retrieval alone.