What the documents look like
For document comparison in B2B marketplaces, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. A referenced sample appendix, later discussion and current confirmation have distinct identities. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A proposed B2B packet contains a purchase text referring appearance to a sample appendix, a sample marked brushed finish for discussion only and an email acknowledging receipt of the latest attachment. Before answering whether brushed-finish supply is confirmed, identify which sample and version the purchase text references. The discussion restriction remains relevant, and acknowledgement concerns receipt. These sources can identify what is being discussed without establishing an agreed finish or a current-batch supply commitment. Their document relationship needs evidence before their statements can be combined.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Transaction-source check | Material and action scope | Acceptance action |
|---|---|---|
| Appendix correspondence | Purchase text alone identifies no sample version | Inspect reference and transfer record. |
| Sample purpose | For discussion only | Retain the limiting wording. |
| Specification state | Current brushed finish unconfirmed | Seek subject-matched confirmation. |
| Email action | Receipt is not supply acceptance | Read reply and its object. |
| Citation content | Purchase text does not replace appendix | Inspect actual referenced wording. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Associated knowledge bases | Knowledge bases associated with one search node must use the same embedding model. |
Citation output | The output is an array; an empty array can continue. |
Citation input handoff | Inspect citations actually received by the answer step. |
Citation display check | Trace displayed sources to their originals. |
Document-validity check | Inspect source identity and applicable version separately. |
Three common errors
First, an earlier sample with the same title may replace the referenced appendix; inspect the reference, attachment identity and current transfer record. Second, removing for discussion only may turn a sample into a confirmed specification; seek confirmation for this particular subject. Third, receipt may become acceptance of supply; inspect the reply action and obtain supply-confirmation evidence. These are attachment correspondence, specification state and transaction action. A single citation marker cannot establish all three simply because the texts appear within the same purchase correspondence.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance can ask what the purchase text references, what the sample establishes and what the email acknowledges, comparing each adopted sentence with actual references. If the citation array contains only the purchase text, retain the unresolved appendix identity and discussion state. When confirmation is added, inspect its product, finish and batch applicability before repeating the question. Empty references require investigation of search scope and transfer; they do not establish that an appendix never existed. Reading a discussion also supplies no evidence of completed supply.