What the documents look like
For document comparison in On-demand retail fulfillment, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. Trace immediate-retail substitution proposals, contact records and picking notes separately. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A proposed immediate-retail packet has an order for fragrance-free detergent, a picking note requiring location verification and a contact record saying a substitution proposal was sent without a current reply. The proposal offers the same brand’s scented version; a separate earlier-order chat contains okay. A question about accepted substitution and completed picking needs order and reply attribution preserved. Shared branding leaves fragrance different, sending a proposal establishes no acceptance and checking a location establishes no picked item. An isolated positive word cannot join these records into current consent.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Transaction-source check | Material and action scope | Acceptance action |
|---|---|---|
| Original attribute | Fragrance-free | Do not erase through shared branding. |
| Proposal object | Scented substitute | Check current-order proposal. |
| Reply reference | Earlier-order okay | Inspect conversation and answered content. |
| Picking action | Location verification needed | Do not call it a picked item. |
| Unanswered state | No current response | Do not infer refusal. |
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, the earlier okay may become acceptance for this order; inspect chat ownership and the exact proposal answered rather than extracting a positive word. Second, the same brand may become the same fragrance-free product; compare fragrance wording and current product descriptions without inferring attribute identity from branding. Third, location verification may become completed picking; inspect the operation action and seek an actual picking record. These require reply correspondence, product attributes and operation stage, keeping their separate evidence needs visible even when every source has a citation marker.
How to verify the setup
Ask which fragrance the order requests, whether the current proposal received a reply and what the picking record establishes, checking actual references. Earlier-chat-only results require investigation of current contact records; no reply does not establish refusal. Brand descriptions alone establish no fragrance equivalence. Added replies need the proposal and order together, since one isolated word identifies no acceptance scope. Empty references require scope and transfer investigation. This exercise executes no substitution, picking or delivery and establishes no actual handling outcome for the current order from the proposed text alone.