What the documents look like
Near-expiry markdown handling tracks the shelf life of stock already on display, rather than weighing and sorting individual orders. The working materials are near-expiry lists, markdown approvals, damage write-off forms and promotional price tags, and they draw on POS stock-age data, store inspections, ERP inventory and quality-check records. In procurement and supplier files, the same batch can appear in a near-expiry list, a write-off form and a markdown approval, with field names and definitions that do not always line up. Supplier records and purchase records then need to be matched by entity, batch and date range.
The vector model and index step only recalls candidate content by semantic or keyword similarity. Whether an approval is complete, whether a write-off was executed, and which operator holds which authorization are separate facts that downstream business systems or human review must confirm. Retrieval is not authorization.
Constraints at the vector indexes step
Knowledge bases joined in one search must use the same vector model. Check the actual model identifier and the input type each base accepts before joining them. One source data block can be linked to several indexes, and the index content and the original content are checked separately. Index content should be complete and focused; retrieval coverage and index length are weighed against the sample at hand. Image retrieval also depends on whether an image description or image vector index was generated at ingestion time, so the query side alone does not settle the question. After a model or index change, compare the cited original text against the same set of questions; a vector score on its own does not support a claim about retrieval quality.
Hypothetical paper exercise: the following is paper material, not taken from a real customer or system record.
Source text one (near-expiry list extract): "Supplier: Qinghe Produce; category: leafy greens; batch number: QH-240517-A; arrival date: 17 May 2024; shelf life to 20 May 2024; current stock: 36 units; status is awaiting markdown approval."
Source text two (markdown approval extract): "Applicant: fresh produce team; linked batch: QH-240517-A; proposed markdown: 30 percent off; approval status is submitted, awaiting regional manager review; submitted 18 May 2024 09:20."
Draft sentence to assess: "This batch has completed markdown approval and may be sold at 30 percent off."
The subject required for the assessment is Qinghe Produce batch QH-240517-A, the object is markdown approval, and the status field reads "awaiting regional manager review." The material shows submission only; it does not show approval or effect. The draft sentence is unsupported and remains pending verification. A submitted request is not an approval.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation checks tied to this page's documents and primary task. The values are starting points for this paper exercise, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Vector model | Joined knowledge bases share one model identifier | Documented requirement that joined bases use the same vector model; check each base's model identifier and exclude mismatches |
| Index content | Each index focuses on one of batch number, supplier, date or status | Documented guidance that complete, focused index content improves precision; compare index against source block item by item |
| Citation cap | Set for this exercise to the token volume needed to cover the three documents | Documented control of citation volume in tokens; compare against the actual citation length of the sample |
| Minimum relevance | Starting point for this exercise set at a middle value | Documented as effective only under semantic search or reranking; compare filtered and unfiltered results on the same question set |
| Search mode | Full-text search for batch numbers, semantic search for status wording | Documented suitability of full-text search for numbers and proper nouns; observe each field type separately |
| Result reranking | Enabled when candidates are numerous, with scores checked | Documented 0-1 rerank score usable for filtering; requires a rerank model enabled in the settings |
Three common errors
- Treating "awaiting regional manager review" as completed approval. The input is the markdown approval text; compare the value of the approval status field; the observable result is that "awaiting review" and "approved" are distinct values and cannot be equated.
- Treating a vector similarity score as a basis for authorization or entity separation. The input is the returned candidate list; compare the score against the approval status field; the observable result is that a high score does not change the approval status field, and authorization still requires business-system confirmation.
- Joining knowledge bases that use different vector models. The input is each base's model identifier; compare whether the identifiers match; the observable result is that mismatched bases are excluded, and no cross-model retrieval is run to infer missed recalls or redundancy.
How to verify the setup
- Check one: input source text one and source text two from the hypothetical sample, and compare the draft sentence "this batch has completed markdown approval" against the approval form's "awaiting regional manager review" field. The condition is met when the draft sentence is marked unsupported or pending verification, and no "approval complete" conclusion appears.
- Check two: input batch number QH-240517-A and use full-text search, then compare whether the returned citations contain the batch number from the source text. The condition is met when citation content can be traced back to the source material, without any promise that the first hit or the complete set is returned.
- Check three: input an empty-result scenario and check the downstream design against the paper input []. The condition is met when the citation content is output as an array whose length can be zero, the downstream path runs through, and no claim is made that a fabricated rule search must return an empty array.
All of the above is paper review. No retrieval, approval, write-off or synchronization action was actually executed.