What the documents look like
Marketplace category qualification happens before a listing goes live or a store joins a platform. The review centers on four document families: business licenses, trademark registration certificates, brand authorization chains, and industry permits. Compared with store review maintenance, the decision here rests on the operating entity and the chain of authorization. Names of entities, authorized objects, and validity periods must line up across documents. Channel operations staff, store onboarding specialists, and brand channel managers handle these files repeatedly. The slowest steps are collecting the authorization chain, matching the business category, and supplementing permits. Materials are resubmitted at each onboarding, so the same license or authorization letter can sit in a different validity state across onboarding batches. Citation tracing must therefore show which version a material came from and which entity it corresponds to.
The knowledge base search node can link one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and it outputs cited content as an array whose length may be zero. An empty array means the output path still completes; the workflow does not fail on that account. Whether a retrieved result is used by the answering step must be checked item by item against the cited original text. A fluent answer or a visible thinking trace does not replace source evidence. Retrieval itself carries no authorization judgment. A relevance score is a relevance number, not a category, entity, or permission filter. A material being retrieved does not mean the entity is authorized or the contract has taken effect.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
Hypothetical drill sample: the material text reads "Party A: Xinghai Example Trading Co., Ltd.; Party B: Yunling Example Brand Management Co., Ltd.; authorized object: Class 25 clothing; authorization period: January 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026; this authorization letter takes effect on the date both parties affix their seals." The draft sentence to be assessed reads "Yunling Example Brand Management Co., Ltd. has obtained Class 25 clothing authorization from Xinghai Example Trading Co., Ltd., valid until December 31, 2026." The check compares the authorization period coverage with the end date stated in the draft, and confirms whether the seal-based effective condition has a corresponding record in the material. If the material does not state a seal date, the effective fact remains unsupported and the evidence gap must be kept.
Retrieval output must be passed to the answering step and then compared line by line with the cited original text. The display of cited text should be checked against a traceable sample rather than inferred from answer fluency. Material timeliness should be checked with a current version and a historical version of the same document; whether a citation is adopted still depends on review of the valid version. Category access review concerns which materials, operations, and requests sit in which authorization state at handover. Retrieval and forms are not authorization execution.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical trial starting point for this page | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Select one library containing qualification materials | First check the selected library and material version; only libraries with the same vector model can be linked together |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Authorization numbers and permit numbers suit full-text recall; entity names suit semantic recall |
| Citation limit | A hypothetical starting value in tokens for this trial | Compare with the length of the material passage so the authorization period field is not truncated |
| Minimum relevance | A hypothetical middle value for this trial | Compare with the relevance scores of recalled results and observe whether valid materials are filtered out |
| Cited content output | Accept the array; length may be zero | When the array is empty, the downstream step still handles the no-citation branch |
| Material timeliness check | One current version and one historical version | Compare the same field across versions to confirm which version the citation points to |
The values in this table are hypothetical trial starting points for this page and are not official default values. Thinking budget belongs to model thinking intensity settings and is unrelated to the citation token limit; the two cannot be mixed.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as established authorization. The input is a retrieved authorization letter citation; the comparison object is the effective condition stated in the letter against the authorization conclusion in the draft sentence; the observable result is that the draft still states a definite authorization while the effective condition lacks support, in which case it should be marked as pending verification.
- Treating an empty citation array as a process failure. The input is the search node output
[]; the comparison object is whether the downstream node continues on the no-citation branch; the observable result is that the downstream step does not stop because of the empty array, which shows the path completes. - Linking knowledge bases with different vector models. The input is two libraries with different vector model identifiers; the comparison object is whether the model identifiers match; the observable result is that a mismatched library is excluded and the actual observation is recorded, without inferring missed recall or redundant results.
How to verify the setup
- Using the hypothetical sample text above, input the draft sentence, compare the authorization period field with the end date in the draft, and observe whether the two agree; if the material does not state a seal date, observe whether the system marks the sentence as unsupported.
- Using the explicit paper input
[]for the downstream design, compare whether the downstream branch executes along the no-citation path, and observe whether the workflow continues running. - Using a current version and a historical version of the material, input the same entity name, compare the version the cited content points to, and observe whether the answer cites the version consistent with the review target; when versions differ, record the gap without judging it as a negation or a conflict.