What the documents look like
For procurement in Franchise fee settlement, this page examines FastGPT citation tracing. Delegated-purchase matters, settlement state and equipment suppliers need separate evidence. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A proposed procurement packet associated with franchise settlement notes that equipment may be purchased through a separate arrangement, marks material review pending and identifies a settlement contact. A question about buying equipment directly from this ledger needs those roles preserved. The remark describes a possibility, the ledger supplies no equipment list and the contact is not identified as seller. Citations cannot turn settlement coordination into equipment supply or file existence into an agreed equipment scope. The proposed texts contain no amounts or commercial parameters from which a transaction could be reconstructed.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Procurement source check | Proposed material and scope | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Delegated-purchase possibility | Separate arrangement possible | Do not describe as placed order. |
| Ledger scope | Settlement material pending review | Do not invent equipment entries. |
| Contact role | Settlement coordinator | Check actual supplying identity. |
| Gap type | Missing list is not prohibition | Check separate applicable documents. |
| Matter correspondence | Later delegation and store | Check scope before citing. |
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, a possible delegated purchase may become an order already placed; inspect actual delegation and purchase records. Second, a settlement contact may become supplier identity; inspect the transaction role and supply material. Third, an unprovided equipment list may become a definite prohibition on buying; check for a separate applicable delegation or list and distinguish a gap from an explicit negative agreement. These need action, identity and evidence-type checks respectively. A ledger state cannot replace supply scope or authorize rewriting the underlying settlement arrangement.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance should ask what possibility the remark describes, which state the ledger records and which role the contact note identifies. Preserve conditions in actual citations. A specific purchase needs delegation, equipment entries and supply confirmation, without invented models or sale outcomes. A delegated-purchase source name accompanying settlement text still requires its actual content read; empty references do not establish absence of a separate document. Later material must match store and matter before use. One delegated-purchase note cannot establish that the contact supplies every equipment item.