What the documents look like
Livestream violation appeals address penalties that have already been issued, so the evidence chain must be reconstructed from records that already exist. For the inventory procurement and supplier materials task, the working documents are violation notices, livestream recordings, product qualification files, and appeal statements. The procurement-relevant content inside those documents includes purchase batches, supplying entities, authorization scope, and inventory quantities.
The brief describes this category as one where materials are updated irregularly, once per violation, and are supplemented separately by store compliance, livestream operations, and legal staff. Those three roles contribute different pieces: compliance may hold the violation notice, operations may hold the recording, and legal may hold the authorization documents. A retrieval result reflects textual similarity between the query and stored content. It does not reflect whether an authorization is currently valid, whether a batch may be sold, or whether a request has been approved.
The consequence of getting this wrong in the category is product sales bans, account throttling, and deposit deductions, which is why the appeal materials need to be traceable to their source wording rather than to a summary.
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 built on different vector models cannot be associated together. The check at this point is to compare vector model identifiers, exclude those that do not match, and record what was actually observed. A mismatch in identifiers does not by itself establish that recall was missed or that results were redundant.
Search mode is compared per test question across semantic, full-text, and hybrid retrieval. No single mode is assumed to suit all materials. Batch numbers, authorization periods, and supplier names suit full-text or hybrid retrieval; natural-language descriptions suit semantic or hybrid retrieval. The reference limit is measured in tokens, and content completeness is tested with materials of differing lengths before the limit is adjusted. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used; relevant and irrelevant samples are labelled first, then the threshold is compared against them. Question optimization performs coreference resolution and question expansion, so the original question and the optimized question are compared to check whether the subject was altered.
Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF. RRF is a fusion process, not a switch. Result reranking requires an available model and must be enabled by configuration; it does not run on every request. Image retrieval requires image input and model capability. Reference content is output as an array and its length may be 0, meaning the downstream path still runs when nothing is retrieved. Retrieval and similarity scores do not carry permission or entity isolation; retrieval is not authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise: a store compliance staff member intends to check one appeal material. The source text reads: "Supplier A issued an authorization letter on 1 March 2025, authorizing this store to sell batch B2403 from 1 March 2025 to 30 June 2025, with the authorization scope limited to online channels." A separate inventory sheet states: "Batch B2403, inbound quantity 1,200 units, inbound date 20 February 2025." The draft sentence to be judged is: "Supplier A has authorized this store to sell batch B2403 for the full year 2025, and inventory is sufficient." The draft differs from the source in three places: authorization period, authorization scope, and the inventory conclusion. Each is checked item by item.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select the inventory procurement base and the supplier materials base that use the same vector model | Compare vector model identifiers first, exclude non-matching ones, and do not run cross-model retrieval comparisons |
| Search mode | Use full-text or hybrid retrieval for batch numbers and authorization periods | Compare number hit results against semantic retrieval, and adjust based on actual observation |
| Reference limit | Set to a token amount that can cover one authorization letter and one inventory sheet | Test content completeness with materials of differing lengths and compare against truncation |
| Minimum relevance | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then set a starting value to be compared | This value takes effect only under semantic retrieval or result reranking, and is adjusted by sample filtering effect |
| Question optimization | Enable for follow-up questions containing references, and compare before and after for already-clear questions | Check whether the subject of the optimized question was altered, without concluding anything about permissions |
| Result reranking | Use when a model is available and it is enabled by configuration | Compare rerank scores against vector scores and confirm the ordering change |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization confirmation. In the hypothetical sample, the draft says "authorized for the full year," while the source authorization period is 1 March 2025 to 30 June 2025. Retrieving the authorization letter only shows the text was recalled; it does not show that a full-year authorization holds. The check compares the same subject, the same period, and the same field; a period mismatch counts as unsupported.
- Treating a quotation validity period as a supply period. In the hypothetical sample, the inventory sheet states only inbound quantity and date, with no supply period. The draft says "inventory is sufficient," while the source provides no inventory consumption or supplyable range. This is an evidence gap and cannot be judged as a conflict or a negation.
- Treating a pending review request as an approved execution. In the hypothetical sample, a handover request reads "please approve using this batch for the appeal." That request is in a pending state; it does not show that operational permission was obtained, and it does not show that an appeal was submitted or approved.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source material text and the draft sentence, then compare the authorization period field. The source gives 1 March 2025 to 30 June 2025, and the draft gives the full year 2025. Same subject, same field, mutually exclusive values; when these conditions hold, the result is judged as contradictory, and the source location is retained.
- Input the inventory sheet source text and the "inventory is sufficient" conclusion, then compare the inventory field. The source gives only an inbound quantity of 1,200 units and an inbound date of 20 February 2025, with no supplyable period or consumption stated. When these conditions hold, the result is judged as unsupported, and the evidence gap is recorded.
- Input the pending handover request and compare the authorization state. The request is pending, with no approval record stated. When these conditions hold, the result is judged as pending verification; no business action is executed, and no claim is made that it was approved or submitted.
For empty-result handling, a clearly labelled paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design. It cannot be claimed that a fabricated rule search necessarily returns []. The materials needed for verification must be inside a target retrieval scope to which access exists, or inside an explicit manual input; when missing, the gap is recorded.