What the documents look like
Livestream violation appeals address penalties that have already been issued. The material set is built around the violation notice, the livestream recording, product qualification documents and the appeal statement. Document comparison here answers one question: can a qualification, order or agreement cited in the appeal statement be found in the named material with the same subject, the same period and the same field in its original wording.
Sources include the platform violation center, livestream replays, customer service records and the product qualification library. Updates are irregular and each violation starts a fresh round of document assembly. The formats differ sharply. A violation notice states the penalized subject and points to a segment; a livestream recording is a continuous timeline; qualification documents and transaction records carry numbers, validity periods and subject names. Comparison begins by establishing which material and which field a citation points to, then checking whether that field is stated in the material.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node selects one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and outputs cited content as an array whose length may be zero. When nothing is retrieved, the output path still completes. An empty array means this retrieval returned no citation; it does not mean the workflow terminated with an error. Retrieved results are candidate material fragments, not authorization credentials, and they do not confirm a subject, a period or a field.
The minimum relevance value takes effect only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. It is a filter threshold and does not perform entity isolation or permission filtering. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, so final ordering does not strictly follow a single vector similarity. Image retrieval requires image input and corresponding model capability, and reranking requires a model and must be enabled in settings. Paths listed in the overall flow diagram do not all execute on every request. The citation limit controls, in tokens, the maximum amount of content cited per search, and is unrelated to thinking budget.
Hypothetical paper exercise. A store receives a violation notice stating that listing 3 exaggerated product effects during a livestream on 12 May. A draft sentence in the appeal statement reads: "The validity period of this product's quality inspection report covers 12 May; report number ZJ-2205-118; commissioning party Qinghe Trading (example)." The source material supplied for checking states on its first page: "Report number: ZJ-2205-118; commissioning party: Qinghe Trading (example); issue date: 20 March 2025; this report applies only to the sample submitted." The material does not state an expiry date and does not state any correspondence with listing 3. The handover request reads: "Please confirm the draft sentence above can be used directly for appeal submission."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check on this page | Relation to the exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select only knowledge bases sharing the same vector model; verify identifiers first and exclude those that do not match | The material library and the qualification library must share a vector model identifier before they can be associated together |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval with result reranking | A report number is an exact identifier, so full-text recall helps matching |
| Citation limit | For this hypothetical trial the starting value is 2000 tokens, chosen because the exercise needs to hold the report first page and the notice fragment; comparison method is to lower it step by step and observe whether the report number is still recalled | This is a hypothetical starting value, not an official default |
| Minimum relevance | For this hypothetical trial the starting value is 0.3; comparison method is to observe whether the report number fragment enters the citations | Takes effect only in semantic retrieval or reranking |
| Cited content output | Check each citation against the source material wording | Used to judge whether the fields in the draft sentence are supported |
| Citation handoff | Check whether retrieval output is passed to the answering step | Numbers and subjects in the answer must be checked back against the cited source |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization confirmation. In the exercise, recalling the report number only shows the fragment is relevant to the query; it does not show the report covers 12 May or corresponds to listing 3. Check: use the draft sentence as the query, compare whether the cited source states a validity period and a listing correspondence field, and when the citation contains only the number and the commissioning party, judge the claim as unsupported.
- Treating minimum relevance as permission filtering. Relevance is a filter threshold and does not exclude unrelated subjects or unauthorized records. Check: use a different subject name as the query, compare whether the returned citations contain that subject's original wording, and when citations contain other subjects' fragments, record that retrieval performed no entity isolation.
- Treating an empty citation array as an error. When output length is zero the path still completes. Check: use a paper input of an empty array to inspect the downstream design, compare whether downstream handles it as no citation, and when downstream continues to execute, confirm the empty result is carried through.
How to verify the setup
- For the draft sentence "The validity period of this product's quality inspection report covers 12 May; report number ZJ-2205-118; commissioning party Qinghe Trading (example)", the input is the report number and the commissioning party name. Compare whether the cited source contains an expiry date field. When the source states only an issue date and the sentence "this report applies only to the sample submitted", judge the validity-period claim as unsupported and keep the evidence gap open.
- For the handover request "Please confirm the draft sentence above can be used directly for appeal submission", the input is the request text together with the retrieval citations. Compare whether the citations contain an authorization or effectiveness clause. When the material states no authorization scope, judge the request as pending verification and not as granted authorization.
- For the source sentence "this report applies only to the sample submitted", the input is that sentence together with the draft sentence. Compare how each describes the scope of application. When the draft sentence extends the report's effect to a specific date and listing, judge it as exceeding the source wording, requiring either additional corresponding material or a revised statement.
All judgments above are paper reasoning. No retrieval was executed and no submission was made.