What the documents look like
Member private-domain operations generate materials across several systems: CRM records, enterprise WeChat conversations, POS transaction records, and mini-program behavior data. The documents that matter for this task are member tag tables, outreach plans, coupon rules, and privacy authorization records. Contract and transaction material comparison requires aligning the member tags behind an outreach plan, and the authorization records cited by coupon rules, against the contract or transaction source text line by line. Materials update daily and weekly, so the same member may have acquired new tags or redemption records between two comparison passes. Each comparison must lock to a single period.
A second characteristic shapes the work. Authorization records and transaction records do not share a single update cycle, and a tag change does not automatically invalidate a prior authorization record. The comparison must treat each document type as carrying its own effective range, and must not infer that a later tag update overrides an earlier authorization statement unless the source text says so.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node outputs citations as an array, and the length may be zero. When no content is found, the output path still completes. Citation content must be handed to the answering stage and checked line by line against source text. Fluency of the answer does not substitute for source evidence.
When linking knowledge bases, only knowledge bases sharing the same vector model can be selected together. Cross-model linking is not permitted. During verification, first check the vector model identifier, exclude those that do not match, and record only what is observed. Do not infer runtime results of cross-model linking.
Semantic retrieval and result reranking produce a relevance score used only to filter low-relevance results. That value takes effect only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. It does not carry permission or entity isolation. Retrieval does not constitute authorization. A form collecting values does not mean business verification, approval, database writes, or external synchronization have completed.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads, "Member ID M-0001, during the period March 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025, authorized the brand to send coupon reminders via enterprise WeChat; this authorization was withdrawn on April 1, 2025." The draft sentence to be assessed reads, "M-0001 was in a reachable state for the entire month of March 2025." The assessment requires the same subject, the same period, and the same field: whether the authorization period and withdrawal date stated in the source are consistent with the draft sentence's claim of full-month reachability.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Documented setting or implementation check | Relation to this page's sample |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Only knowledge bases with the same vector model can be selected together | Check the vector model identifier of the library holding the sample material |
| Search parameters | Citation upper limit is controlled by tokens; minimum relevance takes effect only in semantic retrieval or result reranking | This hypothetical exercise sets a starting minimum relevance of 0.5, chosen to filter low-relevance fragments, compared against a run with no threshold |
| Citation content output | Array format, length may be zero | Use the explicit paper input [] to check downstream handling design |
| Citation input handoff | Check whether retrieval output is passed to the answering stage | Check each answer line against the sample source text |
| Citation display check | Use a traceable sample to check source display | Use the sample source text and draft sentence as the check objects |
| Material timeliness check | Test sources with current and historical document versions | Check the version carrying the authorization period and withdrawal date |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as established authorization. The input is the sample source text and the draft sentence; the comparison is whether a retrieval result appears; the observed phenomenon is that a citation is recalled. Even when recalled, authorization status must return to the source text for checking. Retrieval does not constitute authorization.
- Treating a pending-review status as missing operation permission. The input is a handover request marked pending review; the comparison is between the review status field and the permission field; the observed phenomenon is the pending-review wording. That status does not demonstrate missing operation permission.
- Treating signing, cooperation reached, and contract effectiveness as one fact. The input is three fields of the same material; the comparison is whether the three values are mutually exclusive; the observed phenomenon is that they are recorded separately. These are three distinct facts and cannot be merged into one judgment.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence. Compare whether the authorization period and withdrawal date cover the full month claimed by the draft sentence. When the observed period does not cover it, the judgment is unsupported, and the evidence gap is retained.
- Input the paper empty array []. Compare whether the downstream handling stage continues through with an empty citation. When the observed chain is not interrupted, the empty-result handling design holds. Do not claim that a fabricated rule search necessarily returns [].
- Input the three fields of signing, cooperation reached, and contract effectiveness from the same material. Compare the three values. When they are observed to be recorded separately, the judgment is three independent facts. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period.