What the documents look like
Channel diversion reviews concern regional and price order, which places them apart from rebate accounting, a separate matter of monetary amounts. Routine materials include diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices and investigation photographs, drawn from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records and market inspections. Updates arrive weekly or irregularly; this page does not derive any batch synchronization or transaction-triggered mechanism from that cadence.
For contract and transaction material comparison, three properties shape retrieval and recall. Anti-counterfeit code records carry long code strings, which are exact-query objects that full-text retrieval matches more readily. Complaint forms and investigation photographs describe the same event in inconsistent wording, where semantic retrieval can bridge phrasing differences, though similarity reflects textual closeness only and carries no permission judgment. Penalty notices and contract clauses are frequently queried together, where hybrid retrieval and reranking can concentrate candidates, and the final references still require manual comparison against the source text.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Bases whose vector model identifiers differ cannot be associated together; in that case, verify the identifiers first, exclude those that do not match, and record the actual observation, without running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls. Retrieval takes the library as its smallest search unit; a collection serves classification management only and does not affect search results. Reference content is output as an array whose length can be 0, and the output path still runs when nothing is found.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a brand channel control role receives a diversion complaint form reading "Complaint target: Distributor A, East China region; Product batch involved: A2024-0317; Complaint grounds: this batch sold at low price in an e-commerce shop in South China; Registration date: 8 April 2024; Current status is pending verification." The same batch of materials contains a draft penalty notice reading "Distributor A is proposed to be charged a penalty for diverting batch A2024-0317; this notice has not been issued." The sentence to be judged is "Distributor A has already been penalized for diverting batch A2024-0317." The comparison task is to retrieve the above materials within a knowledge base scope to which access has been granted, and to judge whether the draft sentence is supported by the source text. In this sample, the complaint form carries a pending-verification status and the penalty notice is unissued; neither fact reaches a penalized state.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists, for this sample, the stated settings or implementation check items relevant to this feature and this task. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, used for item-by-item comparison against the sample source text, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Starting point for this hypothetical exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Associate only the same-vector-model base holding the complaint form and the draft penalty notice | Verify the vector model identifier first and exclude bases whose identifiers differ |
| Search mode | Full-text retrieval for batch A2024-0317; hybrid retrieval for the complaint grounds | Compare hit results separately for exact code queries and natural-language descriptions |
| Reference cap | Starting point set to a token amount that fully contains one complaint form body | Test with materials of differing length to see whether references are truncated, then adjust |
| Minimum relevance | Starting point at a middle value, effective only under semantic retrieval or result reranking | Annotate relevant and irrelevant samples manually first, then compare filtering results |
| Question optimization | Enabled for multi-turn follow-ups; compare on and off for single-turn explicit questions | Check whether the optimized question alters the subject or batch number incorrectly |
| Result reranking | Enabled when candidates are numerous and a rerank model is available | Compare how rerank scores and vector scores order the same candidate |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-verification status as already penalized. The input is the complaint form and the unissued penalty notice above; if retrieval results are used to support the draft sentence, the comparison object is the registration status and issuance status recorded in the source text, and the observed phenomenon is that the penalized state asserted by the draft sentence has no corresponding record in the source text.
- Treating similarity as a permission or entity filter. The input is a cross-region complaint query; the comparison object is the subject to which returned content belongs and the current access scope, and the observed phenomenon is that similarity level is unrelated to whether a record falls within accessible scope, and minimum relevance filters only low-relevance text.
- Associating bases with different vector models together. The input is two bases whose vector model identifiers differ; the comparison object is the model identifier field of the two bases, and the observed phenomenon is that the identifiers do not match, handled by excluding the non-matching one and recording it, without drawing inferences about runtime results.
How to verify the setup
- For batch A2024-0317, enter that code and select full-text retrieval, then compare whether the returned content contains that batch code in the source text; the observed phenomenon is that the code in the reference content matches the complaint form record. If an empty array is returned, record that result and check the downstream design for handling empty references.
- For the draft sentence "Distributor A has already been penalized for diverting batch A2024-0317," enter that sentence and retrieve from the same base, then compare the returned complaint form registration status and penalty notice issuance status; the observed phenomenon is that the source text records only pending verification and not yet issued, so the draft sentence is unsupported, and the evidence gap is preserved.
- For cross-model association, enter the identifiers of two bases whose vector model identifiers differ, then compare the model identifier field of the two bases; the observed phenomenon is that the identifiers do not match, recorded as not associable together and excluded, without running a retrieval comparison.
All of the above is paper verification; no retrieval, approval, penalty or synchronization action has been deployed or executed.