What the documents look like
Trade returns and claims handle reverse logistics and responsibility determination after export. The working materials are customer emails, quality inspection reports, customs system records and insurer claim system data. The daily documents are return agreements, claim letters, quality reports and return customs declarations. These materials are produced case by case and updated irregularly, so each handling step has to line up the supplier profile, inventory batch and return documents belonging to the same case.
Three features of this material affect retrieval. First, the parties are multiple and their roles differ: supplier, carrier, insurer and customs broker each appear in different files, so party identifiers must survive retrieval. Second, the materials of one case form in stages, and return-reason confirmation, declaration handling and claim submission each leave records in different states. Third, when a document field is not provided, it is unknown, and a retrieval result cannot substitute for checking state and authorization boundaries.
For the inventory procurement and supplier profile task, the practical consequence is that a retrieved passage about a supplier, a batch or a return agreement is content only. It says nothing about whether an agreement was signed, whether a claim was approved or whether a person holds authority to act.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Knowledge bases with different vector models cannot be associated together. Retrieval recalls candidates through semantic search, full-text search or hybrid search; hybrid search merges multiple result paths through RRF, and result reranking uses a ReRank model for a second ordering. The citation limit is measured in tokens. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic search or when result reranking is used. When question optimization is enabled, it performs coreference resolution and question expansion and adds one model call before retrieval.
Retrieval carries content recall only. It does not carry permission judgment, entity isolation or business authorization. A similarity score is not a permission filter, and a recall hit does not mean a return agreement has been signed, a claim has been approved or an operation has been authorized. Forms collect field values; business verification, approval, database writes and external system synchronization each need a separately implemented step.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a supplier profile page holds three sentences of source material for checking. The first sentence reads: "Return agreement number S-204 is in pending review status, and the reviewer has not signed." The second sentence reads: "Quality report number Q-311 states that the appearance inspection is complete, and the functional inspection result field is empty." The third sentence reads: "Claim letter number C-407 was sent by the customer in March 2026, and the claim system has not recorded an acceptance result." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "Return agreement S-204 is in effect, quality report Q-311 concludes a pass, and claim C-407 has been accepted." The sample states its party, object, state and period; the numbers and dates are hypothetical.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature, tied to the sample above. Where a number appears, it is a hypothetical trial starting point for this exercise, with its reason and its comparison object.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | Check method and basis |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Associate only one base with one vector model | Check that the vector model identifier matches, and exclude bases whose identifier differs |
| Search mode | Try full-text search first for number-type questions | Use S-204, Q-311 and C-407 as input and observe whether the numbers are matched |
| Citation limit | Start at a token amount that can hold the three source sentences | This starting point follows from the sample text length; compare completeness against a smaller value that holds one sentence |
| Minimum relevance | Enable under semantic search or reranking | Mark relevant and irrelevant passages in the sample first, then compare filtering results at different values |
| Question optimization | Enable for follow-up questions containing references | Compare the original question with the optimized question and check whether subjects such as S-204 are altered |
| Result reranking | Enable when candidates are numerous | Compare candidate order before and after reranking and observe whether the score is used for filtering |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as state confirmation. On input "S-204 return agreement", retrieval returns the agreement text. Judging from that return that the agreement is in effect turns a recall result into a signing or effectiveness fact. The check should separate the text being retrieved from the value of the agreement state field; pending review is not signed.
- Treating a similarity score as a permission or entity filter. On input of a supplier name, semantic search returns a passage with a high score. Concluding from that score that all records under the supplier are authorized for viewing confuses relevance with an authorization boundary. The check should confirm access rights and authorization state separately.
- Filling an empty field in the draft sentence with a definite conclusion. In the sample the functional inspection result field of Q-311 is empty. Writing a pass in the draft sentence makes a positive judgment about a field that is not stated. The check should record the unstated field as pending verification and keep the evidence gap.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source sentences of the sample and compare the retrieved content with the source wording. The condition is met when the returned passage contains the source state words such as "pending review", "result field is empty" and "has not recorded an acceptance result", and does not contain rewrites such as "in effect", "pass" or "accepted". If the returned content replaces or completes the state, record that failure branch.
- Input the draft sentence to be judged and compare its three clauses with the corresponding source text. If the S-204 state remains pending review, the Q-311 functional inspection remains empty, and C-407 still has no acceptance record, then the draft sentence does not match the source. The expectation is to identify three unsupported statements, without claiming that a live test was run.
- Input a paper empty result, that is, a citation content array of length 0, and check whether the downstream design continues through the empty citation. The condition is met when the downstream step can continue on the empty array and does not infer from it that no record exists. Record the paper empty array separately from a real query; the actual query result remains to be tested.
Knowledge bases with different vector models cannot be associated together. The check is to inspect the vector model identifier first, exclude those that do not match, and record the actual observation, without asserting what would happen if they were associated. Image retrieval and reranking are optional paths that require the corresponding input and model capability, and they do not run on every request.