What the documents look like
Livestream product selection and sample quality inspection happen before a broadcast. The decision at this stage is whether a product can be sold and whether it suits live presentation. The working documents are supplier materials, testing-agency reports, platform negative lists, and historical return rates. Day-to-day handling covers sample evaluation forms, quality inspection reports, supplier qualification files, and prohibited-sale lists.
For contract and transaction material comparison, the citation tracing step takes each cited source and ties it to a specific document, a specific version, and a specific field. Materials update weekly and per product. That cadence affects which version is chosen at citation time. It does not create batch synchronization or transaction-triggered retrieval.
Three facts shape this task. First, the knowledge base search node can associate 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 citation is therefore a permitted observation and does not by itself indicate a fault. Second, full-text search suits exact queries such as numbers, model codes, and proper nouns, while semantic search suits natural-language questions; hybrid search merges multiple retrieval paths through RRF, and reranking requires a model and must be enabled by configuration. Third, the minimum relevance value is a filter threshold that applies only under semantic search or result reranking. It is a filtering threshold, not a sorting rule, and it does not perform permission or entity isolation. Retrieval does not constitute authorization. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own stated downstream implementation.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The same-vector-model requirement constrains only knowledge base association. It does not extend to business-registration sites or other external systems. Image retrieval requires corresponding image input and model capability, and the optional paths shown in the overall document flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them. Reranking requires an available model and must be enabled by configuration.
A hypothetical paper exercise sample: the three source sentences in a supplier-submitted sample evaluation form read, "Submitting entity: Supplier A; sample name: portable juicer cup; evaluation date: March 10, 2025. Attached quality inspection report number QC-2025-0310, report conclusion: conforms to commissioned items. Supplier qualification file valid until June 30, 2025." The draft sentence to be assessed is, "This sample has passed quality inspection and can be scheduled for broadcast." The fields needed for the judgment are the scope of test items covered by the report conclusion and whether a separate broadcast authorization record exists. This sample is a paper exercise; no inspection was actually submitted and no approval was actually granted.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select only the product-selection knowledge base with one vector model | Compare against a knowledge base identifier using a different vector model; exclude mismatches |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Compare against pure semantic search; number-type queries depend more on full-text hits |
| Citation limit | Measured in tokens; starting value set for this exercise | Compare against the length of a single sample evaluation form entry to avoid truncating key fields |
| Minimum relevance | Starting value set for this exercise | Compare against rerank scores; serves only as a filter threshold |
| Result reranking | Enabled according to configuration | Compare against unreranked candidate order; observe whether cited text matches the source |
| Cited content output | Array of length zero is permitted | Compare against downstream handling design; an empty array does not equal a workflow error |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as granted authorization. The input is the citation array; the comparison is whether an authorization field exists. When a citation is present but the approval record is absent, the result is recorded as pending verification.
- Treating an unstated field as a contradiction. The input is the source text of the sample evaluation form; the comparison is the value of the same field. When the report conclusion does not list the item scope, the result is recorded as unsupported.
- Treating optional retrieval paths as executed on every request. The input is whether the current request contains an image; the comparison is model capability against configuration. When no image input is present, image retrieval did not participate, and no missed recall may be inferred.
How to verify the setup
- Check the draft sentence against the sample source text above. The input is the three source sentences and the draft sentence. The comparison is whether the draft sentence exceeds the scope of the report conclusion. When the draft sentence claims the sample passed quality inspection while the source only states conformance to commissioned items without listing the item scope, the sentence is unsupported.
- Check downstream design with the explicit paper input
[]. The input is an empty citation array. The comparison is whether the downstream path still completes. When the path completes without producing an error, this matches the documented empty-output behavior. - Check cross-model knowledge base identifiers. The input is two knowledge base identifiers using different vector models. The comparison is whether the identifiers match. When they do not match, exclude that knowledge base; do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.