What the documents look like
Fresh-food supplier claims pursue quality responsibility at goods receipt. They sit apart from in-store natural shrinkage handling, which is a different process. The working documents are quality exception notes, photo evidence, deduction notices and claim reconciliation statements. These materials come from the quality inspection system, WMS acceptance records, supplier contracts and finance reconciliation. They are produced per batch and reconciled monthly.
For citation tracing, the central requirement is that each deduction assertion can be traced back to the corresponding acceptance record, inspection conclusion and photo evidence. The contract party in supplier records and the reconciliation party must stay consistent.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node selects one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model, and outputs cited content as an array whose length may be zero. When cited content passes to a downstream answer step, each answer statement must be checked line by line against the cited source text. The citation limit in search parameters is controlled in tokens. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic retrieval or result reranking. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF; it is part of the retrieval process, not a standalone switch. Reranking requires a ReRank model and must be enabled in settings. Image retrieval requires image input and model capability. These optional paths do not mean every request executes all of them. Retrieval itself does not perform permission decisions, and a similarity score is not a supplier isolation or authorization filter.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source material to be checked reads: "On 12 March 2025, supplier A (contract number SG-2025-017) delivered batch B0312-02. The WMS acceptance record shows a net weight of 480 kg. The inspection conclusion states the yellow-leaf ratio for leafy vegetables exceeds the standard. Three photos are attached. Deduction notice number KK-0312-02. The deduction amount is calculated under contract clause 7." A second sentence reads: "The claim reconciliation statement shows the deduction for this batch has been confirmed with supplier B, contract number SG-2025-031." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "Supplier A has confirmed the deduction for batch B0312-02, and the claim process is complete."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Assumed starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select one knowledge base holding inspection records and one holding contracts | First check whether both knowledge bases use the same vector model; if not, do not associate them together |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Batch numbers and contract numbers are exact queries; semantic descriptions are natural-language queries; both needs coexist |
| Citation limit | Set to 3000 tokens | Assumed starting point for this exercise, used to observe whether cited content covers the quality exception note and contract clause; compare with 1500 for citation completeness |
| Minimum relevance | Set to 0.35 | Assumed starting point for this exercise, effective only under semantic retrieval or reranking; compare with 0.2 for recall count |
| Result reranking | Enabled | Reranks text when candidate results are numerous; compare with disabled for ranking position |
| Question optimization | Enabled | Completes references in multi-turn follow-ups; compare with disabled for retrieval term completeness |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval score as a supplier isolation basis. The input is a query spanning suppliers. The comparison object is whether the returned citations mix in another supplier's contract or reconciliation record. The observable result is that cited content contains a non-target supplier entity. Retrieval does not perform permission filtering; this must be checked separately at the business layer.
- Writing a pending-review state as confirmed. The input is the draft sentence in the hypothetical sample. The comparison object is whether the source material contains a confirmation record from supplier A. The observable result is that the draft sentence asserts "has confirmed" while the source only has a deduction notice number and lacks supplier A's signature or reply evidence.
- Associating knowledge bases with different vector models. The input is two knowledge bases with different vector model identifiers. The comparison object is whether the node permits selecting both at once. The observable result is that the association is rejected or the identifiers do not match. In that case, exclude the non-conforming one and record it; do not proceed to compare retrieval results.
How to verify the setup
- For the draft sentence in the hypothetical sample, input that draft sentence together with the two source sentences. Compare the three fields of subject, object and state. The draft subject is supplier A. The source deduction notice subject is supplier A, but the second source sentence names supplier B as the reconciliation subject, with a different contract number. The observable result is that the draft attributes supplier B's confirmation state to supplier A, which is judged unsupported, and the evidence gap must be retained.
- Input an explicit paper empty result array []. Compare whether the downstream answer step accepts it normally. The observable result is that the downstream receives the empty citation and continues execution without an error termination. This check does not claim that any fictional rule retrieval will always return an empty array.
- Input a query containing batch number B0312-02. Compare whether the returned citations include the quality exception note text corresponding to that number. The observable result is that the cited content contains that number and the corresponding inspection conclusion. If it does not appear, record it as a miss and check whether the data has completed training; do not guarantee a first-hit or full recall.
Authorization boundary note: retrieval and form collection do not constitute authorized execution. Supplier A's confirmation, supplier B's reconciliation and the issuance of the deduction notice are three separate facts. When any material does not state the corresponding signature or effective status, it remains pending verification.