What the documents look like
A fresh-food concession counter in a hypermarket is operated on site by a supplier, and settlement follows a sales-share arrangement. Contract terms and daily transaction materials sit in two separate record sets. The contract states the share ratio, the settlement cycle and how spoilage is borne. The transaction side produces daily sales reports, spoilage sheets and food purchase inspection records. The comparison task decides whether a given sale or spoilage entry in the contract and in the transaction materials points to the same operator, the same period and the same field. Materials update daily and per batch, and they originate from the hypermarket fresh-food department, the concession supplier and the store manager. When any party's material is missing, the conclusion stays at pending verification.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
Citation tracing requires that every comparison conclusion can be pointed back to specific source text. The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and it outputs citations as an array whose length may be zero. An empty array does not mean the workflow has errored and stopped. Search results supply candidate source text only; authorization status, approval and settlement execution belong to downstream implementation. The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold and does not perform entity separation or permission filtering. Hybrid search merges multiple result paths through RRF and then applies ReRank for a second ordering. These paths run according to settings and model capability, and not every request executes all of them.
Hypothetical drill sample: a hypermarket fresh-food concession counter. Material one is a concession contract excerpt: "Party A is a hypermarket fresh-food department; Party B is a vegetable supplier; the share ratio settles at eight percent of fresh-food sales; spoilage is borne by Party B; the contract period runs from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024." Material two is a daily sales report excerpt: "5 March 2024, leafy vegetables, sales of 4,200 yuan." Material three is a spoilage sheet excerpt: "5 March 2024, leafy vegetables, spoilage of 120 yuan, cause water loss." The draft sentence to be judged is: "The leafy vegetable spoilage of 120 yuan on 5 March 2024 should be borne by Party B." The judgment requires confirming that the contract period covers that date, that the spoilage-bearing field is explicit, and that the spoilage sheet's operator matches the contract's Party B.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Concession contract base and transaction material base | The two bases can be associated together only when they share the same vector model; verify the vector model identifier first |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Contract clauses contain precise wording such as share ratios, while transaction materials contain natural-language description; compare semantic and full-text hits |
| Citation upper limit | Starting point set to cover the source length of the three materials | Use whether operator, period and field can be read in full as the comparison standard; raise it if insufficient |
| Minimum relevance | Starting point set to a lower value | First observe whether recalled source text contains the judgment field, then compare recall differences against a higher value |
| Result reranking | Enabled | When candidates are numerous, order by rerank score and compare ordering changes against the unranked result |
| Citation handoff | Search output passed to the answering step | Check each answer statement against cited source text to confirm the source can be traced back |
Three common errors
- Treating minimum relevance as a permission or entity filter. Relevance reflects content similarity only and cannot exclude records the viewer is not entitled to see. Check: feed the sample above and observe whether recalled results include materials from operators other than the contract's Party B, recording what is actually returned.
- Treating an empty citation array as a workflow failure. The documentation states citation length may be zero and the chain still completes. Check: use a paper input of an empty array to inspect the downstream node design and observe whether the downstream step can still execute, without claiming that a fictional search necessarily returns an empty array.
- Treating a pending handover request as already authorized. Pending review does not demonstrate that operating authority exists. Check: present the draft sentence above marked as pending review, compare it with signed materials, and record the evidence gap.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three material excerpts above and compare whether the spoilage-bearing field and the contract's Party B share the same operator, and whether the spoilage sheet date falls inside the contract period. The condition is met when the three materials point to the same operator, the same date and the same field, and the draft sentence gains source support.
- Input material one and material two and compare whether the share-ratio field and the sales field belong to the same field. The condition is met when each field is independently stated and neither is derived from the other; an unstated settlement amount is recorded as pending verification.
- Input the draft sentence above marked as pending review and compare its authorization status against signed materials. The condition is met when pending review is identified as not constituting authorization, the output retains the evidence gap, and no approval or settlement is inferred to have been executed.