What the documents look like
Store price and display checks happen during day-to-day operations, where the focus stays on whether standards are being executed consistently. The material that matters for copy drafting comes from several routine sources: supervisor systems, POS price lists, store cameras, and headquarters promotion calendars. The documents handled day to day are store visit photos, price tag lists, display standards, and rectification notices. These materials are updated weekly or monthly.
For product and marketing copy drafting, the retrieval step takes a text or image question drawn from the drafting basis and returns an array of cited content. That array can have a length of zero, so the output path still runs when nothing is found. The drafting task needs to check whether a proposed sentence is supported by store visit photos, price tag lists, display standards, or rectification notices. Retrieval supplies candidate material; it does not decide whether a sentence is accurate.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can link one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. When the vector store is Milvus (version 2.5.16 or later), full-text search uses BM25; other vector stores use MongoDB $text with jieba tokenization. Hybrid search merges multiple recall paths through RRF. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic search or when result reranking is used. The citation limit is measured in tokens. Question optimization performs coreference resolution and question expansion, and it adds one model call before retrieval. Image retrieval requires an image input and the relevant model capability. Reranking requires a rerank model and must be enabled according to the configuration. The same-vector-model requirement applies to linked knowledge bases; it does not extend to external systems. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation.
Hypothetical paper exercise: A chain brand operations department drafts a promotion sentence in the second week of March 2025. The draft sentence is "This week all displays in this store are executed according to headquarters standards." The material supplied for checking comes from that week's regional supervisor visit record, which states: "The March 10 store visit found that the end-cap display at Store A was not arranged according to standard; a rectification notice was issued requiring completion by March 12." A second material is the March 11 price tag list, which records that three products at Store A had price tags consistent with POS prices. The pending question is whether the draft sentence can be supported by the available materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Link only the knowledge base holding store visit photos, price tag lists, display standards, and rectification notices | Check whether the vector model identifiers of each base match; exclude those that do not |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Use the draft sentence as input and compare the cited content returned by semantic search, full-text search, and hybrid search separately |
| Citation limit | Set to the token amount needed to cover the full text of the longest rectification notice | Test with materials of different lengths to see whether content is complete, then adjust |
| Minimum relevance | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then set the threshold | Takes effect only under semantic search or when result reranking is used |
| Question optimization | Enable for multi-turn follow-ups or short questions | Compare the original question with the optimized question and check whether the subject was altered |
| Result reranking | Enable when candidate results are numerous | Reranking produces a score between 0 and 1 that can be used for filtering |
Three common errors
- Treating the draft sentence "This week all displays in this store are executed according to headquarters standards" as directly contradicted by the store visit record. The record states only that the end-cap display at Store A was not arranged according to standard. It does not cover all stores or all display items. A contradiction requires the same subject, the same period, and mutually exclusive values in the same field. This case is unsupported, not contradictory.
- Extending the fact that the price tag list matched POS prices into evidence that display standards were executed. The price tag list records only the price field. Display status belongs to a different field and cannot be substituted.
- Treating the existence of a rectification notice as evidence that rectification was completed. The notice requires completion by March 12 and is in a pending state. It does not record a completion confirmation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the draft sentence from the hypothetical exercise together with the supervisor visit record text. Compare the "all displays" claimed by the draft sentence with the "end-cap display at Store A not arranged according to standard" recorded in the visit record. If the retrieval result returns the visit record text and manual review confirms that the text covers only the Store A end cap, the expectation is met: the draft sentence is unsupported. If the retrieval result is an empty array, record that observation without inferring a cause.
- Input the draft sentence together with the price tag list text. Compare the "display execution" claimed by the draft sentence with the "price tags consistent with POS prices" recorded in the price tag list. If the retrieval result returns the price tag list and manual review confirms the fields differ, the expectation is met: the price tag list cannot support a display execution conclusion. If an empty array is returned, record it as not retrieved and do not claim the price tag list does not exist.
- Input the rectification notice text. Compare the "completion required by March 12" recorded in the notice with the "all executed according to standard" claimed by the draft sentence. If the retrieval result returns the rectification notice and manual review confirms the notice is in a pending state, the expectation is met: the rectification notice cannot serve as evidence of completed execution. If the retrieval returns a rectification record from another store, check whether the subject matches; exclude it if it does not.