What the documents look like
Platform promotion enrollment and price management work around four recurring documents: the campaign enrollment form, the promotional price approval sheet, the inventory lock sheet, and the campaign review sheet. The decisive values are price, inventory, and campaign timing. Materials move between the platform marketing console, ERP inventory records, and historical transaction prices. In this category, contract and transaction material comparison has to establish whether an enrollment form's price commitment and the approval sheet and lock sheet point to the same subject, the same campaign period, and the same field.
Promotion enrollment materials routinely carry quotation validity windows, pending-review statuses, and intent language. A quotation validity date does not create a supply term. A pending review does not establish that approval was granted. Citation tracing requires that every comparison conclusion can be returned to specific source wording, and the search output supplies candidate citations only; it does not perform permission or eligibility decisions.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node selects one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model and outputs citations as an array, whose length may be zero. When the array is empty, the output path still runs. Search results must be passed to the answering step so that each answer sentence can be checked against the cited source text. The minimum relevance value applies only under semantic search or result reranking; it is a filter threshold and does not act as a permission or entity isolation control. Hybrid search merges multiple retrieval paths through RRF, and rerank scores can be used for filtering, but final citations are not strictly ordered by a single vector similarity. The citation limit controls how much content is cited per search, measured in tokens.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. Material one, enrollment form source text: "The enrolled product for this campaign is Model A, campaign period 1 June 2025 to 7 June 2025, enrolled net price 99, quotation valid until 20 May 2025." Material two, promotional price approval sheet source text: "Model A, campaign period 1 June 2025 to 7 June 2025, approved net price 99, approval status is pending review." Draft sentence to be judged: "Model A promotional price 99 has been approved and can proceed to enrollment." Comparison task: check whether this draft sentence is supported by the materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select campaign material bases sharing one vector model | First check each base's vector model identifier, exclude non-matching ones, and do not run cross-model retrieval |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Compare recalled candidates against semantic search and full-text search separately, observing hits on identifiers and price fields |
| Result reranking | Enabled | Compare candidate ordering with reranking disabled, observing whether rerank scores are used for filtering |
| Minimum relevance | Starting point 0.5 | Compare with 0.3 and 0.7, observing candidate additions and removals; this is a trial starting point, not a default |
| Citation limit | Starting point 2000 tokens | Compare with 1000 and 4000, observing changes in cited content volume |
| Citation handoff | Search output routed to the answering step | Check whether each answer sentence corresponds to cited source text |
Three common errors
- Reading a pending-review status as granted approval. The approval sheet source text states "approval status is pending review," while the draft sentence states "has been approved." The same subject, the same campaign period, and the same approval status field carry mutually exclusive values, which constitutes a contradiction. If the material does not state an approval status, the conclusion can only be recorded as unsupported.
- Treating a quotation validity date as a supply term. The enrollment form source text states "quotation valid until 20 May 2025," which constrains only the quotation window. The material does not state a supply term, so a draft sentence inferring long-term supply from this date exceeds the source wording.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorized execution. The search output citation array supplies candidate source text only and does not determine approval authority or enrollment eligibility. Treating retrieval results directly as executable enrollment confuses retrieval with business authorization.
How to verify the setup
- Input material one, material two, and the draft sentence above. Compare the draft sentence's "has been approved" against the approval sheet's "pending review" field, and observe whether the same field with mutually exclusive values is identified. If the approval sheet states no status, observe whether the result is recorded as unsupported rather than as a negation.
- Input the quotation validity source text and the draft sentence. Compare the validity field against the term conclusion drawn in the draft sentence, and observe whether the check notes that the material does not state a supply term, preserving the evidence gap.
- Input a search output of an empty array [] and observe whether the downstream answering step runs through with empty citations, without claiming that a given rule necessarily returns []. At the same time, check whether each answer sentence corresponds to cited source text.