What the documents look like
For procurement in Refund-only disputes, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. Returned samples, replacement requests and production-spare catalogues need separate tracing. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A proposed procurement exercise linked to a refund case contains a returned sample awaiting inspection, a request to seek a similar replacement and a supplier catalogue listing two interface types. A question about using the returned sample to select a spare lacks inspection findings, a final choice and a mapping to the correct interface. Citations must retain sample state, replacement demand and option identity. Similar cannot become verified compatibility, and the existence of a returned item cannot establish that it may be reused or treated as an approved reference sample.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Procurement source check | Proposed material and scope | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Sample state | Awaiting inspection | Do not treat as validated sample. |
| Replacement demand | Similar part sought | Seek final selection evidence. |
| Interface mapping | Two catalogue options | Check current main unit and interface. |
| Dispute boundary | Procurement differs from responsibility finding | Do not infer liability from demand. |
| Applicability scope | Individual sample differs from batch | Check matching-material version. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Associated knowledge bases | Knowledge bases associated with one search node must use the same embedding model. |
Citation output | The output is an array; an empty array can continue. |
Citation input handoff | Inspect citations actually received by the answer step. |
Citation display check | Trace displayed sources to their originals. |
Document-validity check | Inspect source identity and applicable version separately. |
Three common errors
First, an uninspected sample may become validated fit evidence; seek actual inspection and applicability findings. Second, looking for a replacement may become a completed procurement decision; seek selection or purchase confirmation. Third, a similarly named catalogue part may be matched directly to this item; inspect interface and corresponding main-unit detail. These need sample-state, decision-process and specification correspondence evidence respectively. A return entry cannot establish all three, and the procurement requirement cannot decide responsibility for the original dispute or prove its factual outcome.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance should ask what the return entry supplies, what the request expresses and which matching information the catalogue still needs. Compare answers with actual citations, retaining interface and inspection gaps without inventing supply results. If references contain only the catalogue, inspect whether return and request text reached the answer; empty references cannot establish absence of a supplier option. Later matching material still needs current-unit and version checks. Inspection of one sample cannot establish suitability of an entire spare batch or reusability of every returned item.