What the documents look like
Brand omnichannel stock transfer moves goods between stores and warehouses. The working documents are transfer requests, inventory snapshots, store shortage lists, and transfer logistics notes. In the procurement and supplier records step, purchase orders, supplier qualification files, and quotation records also appear. The subject of these materials is goods and storage locations, with quantities, batches, and status transitions.
ERP inventory, store POS, ecommerce orders, and WMS update on a daily or weekly cadence. When checking a conclusion, use the snapshot that matches the stated time range. Inventory figures from different dates cannot be merged into a single conclusion.
Citation tracing in this step means every inventory or procurement conclusion returns to specific source text. Retrieval is not authorization. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample
Source text for comparison (fictional):
"Transfer request T-2025-0417. Requesting party: three stores in the East China region. Object: SKU 8842 winter down jacket. Quantity: 120 units. Source warehouse: Suzhou warehouse. Status is pending review. Request date: April 17, 2025."
"Suzhou warehouse inventory snapshot, April 16, 2025: SKU 8842 available 200 units, of which 80 units are allocated to online orders and not released."
Draft sentence to be judged: "The transfer request has been approved, and the Suzhou warehouse can immediately ship 120 units."
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node outputs a citation array, and its length may be zero. An empty array means the output link still runs through; it does not mean the workflow has errored or stopped. Retrieved results must be compared line by line against source text. Fluent answers do not replace source evidence.
Only knowledge bases with the same vector model can be linked together. Different vector models cannot be linked. Before checking, confirm the knowledge base identifier and exclude those that do not match. Do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
The minimum relevance score is a filter threshold, not a permission or entity isolation mechanism. It cannot be used to conclude that unrelated business records have been excluded. Retrieval itself is not authorization.
The search mode, minimum relevance, citation cap, result rerank, and question optimization are separate settings. RRF is a fusion process for mixed results, not a toggle. A thinking budget is a reasoning budget and cannot be used as a citation token cap.
Image retrieval requires image input and model capability. Rerank requires a model and must be enabled by setting. Optional paths in the overall flow diagram do not all execute on every request.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Procurement records base, inventory snapshot base | First check whether the two vector model identifiers are the same; if different, they cannot be linked together |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Transfer numbers and SKU codes are exact queries; compare semantic results after RRF fusion |
| Minimum relevance | 0.3 (hypothetical starting point) | Compare with 0.5 to observe changes in recall count; this value only filters low-relevance results |
| Citation cap | 2000 tokens (hypothetical starting point) | Compare with 4000 to observe citation count; decide by actual transfer document length |
| Result rerank | Enabled | When candidates are numerous, compare ordering before and after rerank; rerank score is used for filtering |
| Question optimization | Disabled | A single clear question needs no coreference resolution; enabling adds one model call |
The values above are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, used to illustrate the comparison method. They are not official default values.
Three common errors
- Treating pending review status as approved. Input the transfer request source text and compare the "pending review" and "approved" field values. These two values are mutually exclusive. In the sample, the status is pending review, and the draft sentence claims approval. That conclusion is not supported.
- Treating allocated inventory as available inventory. Input the inventory snapshot source text and compare "available 200 units" with "of which 80 units are allocated." The available quantity must deduct the allocated portion. The draft sentence claims 120 units can ship immediately, which does not match the quantity after deduction.
- Linking knowledge bases with different vector models. Input the vector model identifiers of the two knowledge bases and compare whether they are the same. Different identifiers mean they cannot be linked together. Exclude those that do not match and record the actual observation. Do not infer missed recalls or redundant results.
How to verify the setup
- Compare the draft sentence with the transfer request source text. Input the sample source text and the draft sentence, then compare the subject, object, status, date, and quantity fields. When the status field value is pending review, a conclusion claiming approval does not hold. Mark it as unsupported and preserve the evidence gap.
- Compare the available inventory quantity. Input the inventory snapshot source text and the shipment quantity in the draft sentence, then compare the available quantity with the allocated quantity. When the value after deducting the allocated portion does not match the draft quantity, the shipment conclusion remains to be verified.
- Check empty citation handling. Use a paper input of an empty array
[]to check the downstream design, confirming the output link still runs through and does not trigger an error. This check only verifies the handling behavior. It does not claim that any retrieval rule necessarily returns an empty array.