What the documents look like
Channel diversion review addresses regional and price order, not rebate calculation. The working materials arrive from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records, and market inspections. Daily documents include diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices, and investigation photographs. These materials sit in separate systems and manual records, and their update frequency is weekly or irregular. The contract and transaction material comparison task places the subject, object, time, and regional scope in a complaint form, shipment record, anti-counterfeit code record, and investigation photograph side by side, then produces a traceable citation source for later human judgment. Because sources are many and updates are irregular, every citation must point to a specific material and a specific field. Retrieval returns a citation content array whose length may be zero; an empty array does not mean the workflow has errored or stopped. Retrieval does not carry authorization, and cited content does not mean the business fact has been verified. When linking knowledge bases, confirm the selected bases and material versions, and only bases sharing the same vector model can be linked together. Bases using different vector models cannot be linked together; at this step only the identifier is checked and non-matching bases are excluded, without running cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls. Similarity scores and the minimum relevance value are filter thresholds, not entity or permission isolation, and they cannot be used to exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A hypothetical drill sample is given here. A brand channel control staff member receives a diversion complaint form stating: "The complaint target is East China regional distributor A, involving product batch A2024, found at a South China e-commerce store, discovery date 2024-06-10." A distributor shipment record states: "Distributor A shipped batch A2024 to an East China regional warehouse on 2024-05-20, quantity 200 units." An investigation photograph note states: "Photographed 2024-06-08 at a South China store shelf, batch A2024 product visible." The draft sentence to be judged is: "Distributor A shipped batch A2024 products to South China for sale, constituting diversion." This draft sentence involves subject, batch, time, and region, and must be compared item by item against the materials above. The shipment record only states the destination region as East China, while the draft sentence states South China; the investigation photograph only shows the batch appearing at a South China store and does not show the flow from the East China warehouse to the South China store. The regional conclusion therefore remains unsupported, and the evidence gap is kept. A penalty notice in pending-review status does not show that a penalty was executed and does not show that the distributor lacks operating permission. The search node outputs a citation array, and the array is passed to the answer step; each answer statement is checked against the cited original text. The material version used for citation is checked against the current version and a historical version, and whether a citation is adopted still depends on a valid-version review.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists officially documented settings or implementation check items tied to this page's sample. The numeric values are starting points for this hypothetical trial only, with the reason for choosing them and the value they are compared against.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Select the diversion complaint base and the shipment record base | Check whether the two bases share the same vector model identifier; only matching identifiers allow joint linking |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | The complaint form contains exact fields such as batch number; hybrid search covers semantics and keywords |
| Citation limit | Set to 2000 tokens for this trial | Compare against the combined length of the complaint form and shipment record original text to cover the fields under review |
| Minimum relevance | Set to 0.3 for this trial | Compare against returned citations one by one and observe whether unrelated fragments are filtered |
| Result rerank | Enabled for this trial | Compare against unranked results to confirm candidate text relevance |
| Citation content output | Pass the array output to the answer step | Check the array length, including whether the downstream path runs when the length is zero |
Three common errors
- Treating the regional conclusion in the draft sentence as a verified fact. The draft sentence states that distributor A shipped to South China for sale, but the shipment record only states shipment to an East China warehouse, and the investigation photograph only shows the batch appearing at a South China store. The evidence from the East China warehouse to the South China store is missing. The error is treating related-stage evidence as a complete chain. Check action: input the draft sentence and the two material originals, compare the destination region field of the shipment record with the regional wording of the draft sentence, and observe whether both refer to the same field with mutually exclusive values; if the shipment record states only East China, the regional conclusion is unsupported.
- Treating the retrieval citation array as authorization or as a fact finding. The citation array only indicates retrieved content, its length may be zero, and it does not indicate that the complaint is established or that a penalty can be executed. Check action: input one retrieval request, compare the returned array content with the complaint form original, and observe whether citations correspond one by one to the original; if citations are missing or only fragments appear, record the gap and do not conclude that diversion is established.
- Treating a penalty notice under review as already effective. A penalty notice in pending-review status does not show that it was executed, and it does not show that the distributor lacks operating permission. Check action: input the penalty notice original, compare its status field with the conclusion wording of the draft sentence, and observe whether the status is effective; if it is only pending review, the penalty conclusion remains to be verified.
How to verify the setup
- For the draft sentence in the hypothetical sample, input the complaint form, shipment record, and investigation photograph originals, compare the subject, batch, time, and region fields across the three materials, and observe whether they share the same subject, the same period, and the same field. If the region field states East China only in the shipment record while the draft sentence states South China, judge the conclusion unsupported and keep the evidence gap.
- For the citation content output, input one retrieval request, compare the returned array with the complaint form original, and observe whether citations are traceable one by one. If the returned array length is zero, use the explicit paper input [] to check whether the downstream design still runs, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval returns [].
- For the penalty notice status, input the penalty notice original, compare its status field with the draft sentence conclusion, and observe whether it is effective. If it is pending review, record it as to be verified, and do not supply authorization or effective clauses.