What the documents look like
Douyin storefront operations centre on product cards and the store experience score rather than on the pacing of a single live session. The materials handled day to day include product qualification pages, experience score breakdowns, shipping violation appeals, and store announcements. These materials update daily, and some entries arise per order. For contract and transaction material comparison, the fields at issue include qualification validity periods, shipping commitments, appeal status, and the scope in which an announcement applies. Sources are dispersed across the Douyin store workbench, the Douyin e-commerce learning centre, selected alliance data, and logistics interfaces, so the same field can carry different values in different materials. The comparison task requires checking each cited source against the original text and confirming whether a sentence awaiting judgement has material support.
Because the storefront shelf does not depend on live-session rhythm, the comparison work is driven by the state recorded in documents rather than by a broadcast schedule. Qualification validity and shipping commitments are date- and quantity-scoped, so a draft sentence can only be judged against the same subject, the same period, and the same field. Appeal status and announcement scope determine whether a statement about authorisation or applicability is even reviewable at the citation tracing step.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and its citation output is an array whose length may be zero. A zero-length array means the downstream path still runs; it does not mean the workflow has terminated with an error. The citation limit controls, in tokens, the maximum content cited per search. The minimum relevance value is a 0–1 filter threshold that applies only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. Hybrid retrieval combines multiple recall paths through RRF, and a ReRank model can reorder candidate text a second time. Retrieval output is not authorisation and does not replace manual checking.
A hypothetical paper exercise sample, clearly labelled as such: a product qualification page states, "The quality inspection report for this product is numbered A-2024-0117 and is valid until 30 June 2025. The shipping commitment is dispatch within 48 hours of payment." The experience score breakdown shows zero shipping violations for this product in the last 30 days. The draft sentence awaiting judgement is, "The quality inspection report for this product is within its validity period, and the shipping timeliness meets the commitment." The comparison must confirm whether "within its validity period" in the draft matches the validity field in the original text for the same subject and the same period, and whether "meets the commitment" has support from a mutually exclusive value in the same field of the experience score breakdown. If the material does not state the exact starting point of the committed time limit, that part remains unsupported. No real customer, company, or identity number is used.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select knowledge bases of the same vector model that contain the product qualification page and the experience score breakdown | Only the same vector model can be associated together; check the knowledge base identifier item by item and exclude those with a different vector model |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Uses semantic recall and full-text recall together, which suits a mix of identifiers and natural language queries |
| Citation limit | Set a token value for this exercise | Compare with the original text length needed by the draft sentence to confirm the cited content covers the field being judged |
| Minimum relevance | Set a value between 0 and 1 for this exercise | Compare with the returned score and observe whether the filtered citations still contain the original text needed for judgement |
| Result reranking | Enable ReRank and record the score | Compare with the citation order before reranking to confirm whether the rerank score is used for filtering |
| Citation output handoff | Pass the citation array to the answering step | Check each answer sentence against the cited original text, and confirm the downstream path still runs when the citation array is empty |
Three common errors
- Treating minimum relevance as a permission or entity filter. Minimum relevance is a filter threshold and does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorised records. As a check, enter a query unrelated to qualification, compare whether the returned citations can still include other product materials, and observe whether the result matches the documented threshold behaviour.
- Treating retrieval output as an authorisation conclusion. Retrieving a material does not mean the material has been approved or that a contract has taken effect. As a check, enter the draft sentence awaiting judgement, compare the status field in the cited original text, and observe whether an incomplete state such as pending review or submitted has been read as complete.
- Forcing association of knowledge bases with different vector models. The documentation states that only knowledge bases with the same vector model can be associated. As a check, list the vector model identifiers of the candidate knowledge bases, exclude those that do not match, and record the actual association result without running a cross-model search to compare missed recalls.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the qualification page original text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare whether "within its validity period" and the validity field in the original text share the same subject and the same period, and observe whether the cited content contains that field's original text. If the original text does not state the starting point of the validity period, record it as unsupported.
- Enter the experience score breakdown and the draft phrase "meets the commitment." Compare whether "meets the commitment" and the shipping violation count field in the breakdown share the same subject and the same period, and observe whether a clearly mutually exclusive value exists. If the breakdown does not state the committed time limit, record it as pending verification.
- Enter an explicit paper input of an empty result array []. Compare whether the downstream answering step still runs, and observe whether the output path is interrupted because the citation is empty. Do not claim that a fictional rule search necessarily returns an empty array.