What the documents look like
Brand after-sales repair work is organized around warranty responsibility and physical repair outlets, not around platform refunds alone. The material set for this page is the warranty card, the repair work order, the inspection report and the replacement approval. These documents arrive from the after-sales system, store orders and repair outlet feedback, and they are updated per order and daily. The comparison task is contract and transaction material comparison; the feature under examination is citation source and tracing.
The practical difficulty is that one device's warranty scope, repair history and replacement approval are spread across separate documents. Comparison therefore proceeds item by item across subject, object, status and validity scope. A missing item leaves the citation source untraceable. Dates, amounts and authorization states must be checked against each document's own text. The stated update rhythm of per order and daily does not describe any synchronization mechanism, and this page does not derive one.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use 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 was found. The citation limit is measured in tokens. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic retrieval or result reranking. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF. Reranking requires a rerank model and must be enabled in settings. Image retrieval requires corresponding image input and model capability. Optional paths shown in the overall document diagram do not all execute on every request. Retrieval does not perform authorization. The minimum relevance value is a filtering threshold and does not constitute entity or permission isolation. Knowledge bases using different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers must be checked first and non-matching bases excluded. No cross-model retrieval is run in order to compare missed recalls.
Hypothetical exercise sample: source text one reads "Warranty card number BX-2024-0871, purchase date 12 March 2024, whole-unit warranty period 12 months, mainboard warranty period 24 months." Source text two reads "Repair work order WX-2025-0433, hand-in date 8 April 2025, fault description mainboard will not power on, inspection report number JC-2025-0219." The draft sentence to be judged reads "The mainboard fault on this device occurred within the warranty period and is eligible for free replacement." Comparison must check the subject (same device), the object (mainboard), the status (fault date against warranty expiry date) and the validity scope (the period stated on the warranty card). The draft sentence does not state the fault occurrence date, so a direct judgment cannot be made.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Associate only same-vector-model bases holding warranty cards, work orders and inspection reports | Check knowledge base identifiers and vector model identifiers for consistency, and exclude bases on different models |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Compare recall differences against semantic retrieval and full-text retrieval separately, using number-type and natural-language queries |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point 3000 tokens | Compare against 1500 tokens and 6000 tokens for citation completeness and truncation |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point 0.5 | Compare against 0.3 and 0.7 for the number of entries remaining after filtering |
| Result reranking | Enabled | Compare candidate ordering against the disabled state; a rerank model must be available |
| Question optimization | Enabled | Compare retrieval hits against the disabled state in multi-turn follow-up scenarios |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval output as an authorization conclusion. Retrieval returns an array of cited content whose length may be zero, and this does not indicate that an approval passed or that a replacement was executed. Check: input the warranty card and work order source text from the hypothetical sample and observe whether the output citations contain only source fragments, confirming that no approval status field is replaced by retrieval output.
- Treating the minimum relevance value as a permission or entity filter. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic retrieval or result reranking, and it does not exclude unrelated business or unauthorized records. Check: run the same question at 0.3 and at 0.7 and compare the returned entries to see which low-relevance candidates were filtered; subject and permission scope must be checked separately against the corresponding records, and no isolation conclusion can be drawn from the threshold.
- Describing RRF as a switch that can be turned on. RRF is the result fusion process of hybrid retrieval, not a standalone configuration item. Check: inspect the configuration interface for an RRF switch and confirm that fusion occurs automatically under hybrid retrieval mode with no separate enabling step.
How to verify the setup
- Input the warranty card source text from the hypothetical sample, "whole-unit warranty period 12 months, mainboard warranty period 24 months," together with the draft sentence "The mainboard fault on this device occurred within the warranty period and is eligible for free replacement." Compare whether the draft sentence states the fault occurrence date, observe whether the output preserves the evidence gap about the fault occurrence date, and re-check the warranty validity scope once the missing material is supplied.
- Input the repair work order from the hypothetical sample, "hand-in date 8 April 2025, inspection report number JC-2025-0219." Compare the work order date against the expiry date formed by the warranty card purchase date plus 24 months, observe whether the cited content contains fragments from both source documents at the same time, and confirm that the tracing chain is complete.
- Input an empty-result continuation scenario, using a paper input of an empty array to check the downstream design. Compare whether the downstream node still executes when the citation length is zero, observe whether the output path runs through, and confirm that the empty result is not treated as a system error.
The same-device, same-period, same-field rule applies throughout: only mutually exclusive values in the same field constitute a contradiction. A value that is not stated, or evidence that covers only a related stage, counts as unsupported or pending verification. A pending review does not demonstrate the absence of operating authority. Signing, reaching cooperation and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period. Authorization or effectiveness clauses are not supplied to force a determinate answer, and the evidence gap is left open. Material needed for verification must sit within an accessible target retrieval scope or an explicit manual input; where it is missing, the gap is recorded.