What the documents look like
Third-party overseas warehouses can serve several sales channels at once, and the seller must allocate stock across them. Four document families meet at the comparison step: the replenishment plan, the inbound appointment, the inventory age table, and the last-mile delivery note. They originate from different systems. The replenishment plan comes from ERP demand planning, the inbound appointment from the overseas warehouse WMS, the inventory age table from warehouse stock records, and the last-mile delivery note from the carrier or freight forwarder. The same consignment is therefore recorded by different parties, at different stages, and often with different version dates. Material updates arrive weekly or daily depending on the source, and this page compares only the date and version actually printed on each document.
For citation tracing this matters because a citation must point to one specific sentence or field in one specific version. A quantity in the replenishment plan and a quantity on the inbound appointment can describe the same consignment while sitting at different business stages. The inventory age table reflects a point-in-time in-warehouse position. The last-mile delivery note covers only the outbound leg after goods have left the warehouse. Comparing across these stages requires the stage and the date to be stated, not inferred.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can select one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and it outputs citations as an array. The length of that array may be zero, and the output path still completes when nothing is retrieved. Retrieval returns citation content only. It does not determine whether a document has been authorized, whether an approval has taken effect, or whether a business stage has been reached. A similarity score is a relevance number. It is not a subject, entity, or permission filter, and it cannot be used to exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, which is a fusion process inside retrieval, not an authorization switch that can be turned on. ReRank requires a rerank model that has been enabled in configuration. Image retrieval requires image input and matching model capability. These optional paths are not executed on every request.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The material set belongs to a cross-border seller and an overseas warehouse service provider. The paper text reads: "Replenishment plan number BP-2024-031, planned inbound quantity 1,200 units, planned arrival date 10 April 2024." "Inbound appointment number ASN-2024-118, appointed arrival quantity 1,200 units, appointment status is pending review." "Inventory age table as of 8 April 2024, this batch on-hand quantity 0 units." The draft sentence to be judged is: "This batch has completed inbound and the stock is sellable." The fields needed for that judgment are the inbound completion status and the sellable stock quantity. The source text provides only a pending-review appointment and zero on-hand quantity, so the draft sentence is not supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | One replenishment material base using a single vector model | Check the vector model identifier first; bases with different identifiers are not associated together and no cross-model retrieval comparison is run |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | The materials contain numbered fields; compare recalled results item by item against pure semantic retrieval |
| Citation upper limit | 3,000 tokens as the starting point for this exercise | Compare against the total length of the sample materials and adjust; this value is not an official default |
| Minimum relevance | 0.3 as the starting point for this exercise | Compare against the rerank score distribution; used only to filter low-relevance results and does not perform permission judgment |
| Citation handoff | Pass the citation array to the answering step | Check each answer sentence against the cited source text; check zero-length output against the downstream design |
| Version timeliness check | Retrieve with the current version and the historical version separately | Compare the version each citation points to; adoption still requires review against the effective version |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review inbound appointment as completed inbound. The input is the sample field "appointment status is pending review." The comparison object is the judgment "inbound completed." The observable result is that the appointment status field does not match the draft sentence, and the draft sentence is not supported.
- Treating a similarity score as a permission or subject filter. The input is the minimum relevance setting together with materials from different parties. The comparison object is whether citation content is isolated by party. The observable result is that the relevance number contains no subject field, so material belonging to another party can still be recalled and requires manual review.
- Treating retrieval output as business execution. The input is the citation array. The comparison object is whether an inbound confirmation or an inventory write occurred. The observable result is that the node outputs citations only; business actions require separate downstream implementation, and retrieval itself produces no authorization or write.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three sample source sentences and the draft sentence. Compare "inbound completed" and "stock is sellable" in the draft against "pending review" and "on-hand quantity 0 units" in the source. The observable result is a finding of not supported, with the missing inbound completion field and sellable quantity field recorded.
- Input the paper citation array []. Compare whether the downstream answering step accepts a zero-length output. The observable result is that the path completes without an error assertion. No claim is made that a fictional rule search must return an empty array.
- Input two knowledge bases whose vector model identifiers differ. Compare whether they are associated together. The observable result is that the mismatched identifier is excluded and recorded, and no further claim is made about missed recall or redundant results after joint association.
The evidence gaps remain open. The sample does not state an inbound completion field, a sellable quantity field, an authorization state, or an effective version. Where those fields are absent, the correct outcome is not supported or pending verification, not a negative finding and not a conflict. A pending review does not establish a lack of operating permission. Signing, reaching cooperation, and contract effectiveness are three separate facts. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period.