What the documents look like
Centralized procurement and distribution for a chain operation centers on headquarters purchasing and the distribution center. The working documents are collective procurement contracts, replenishment plans, distribution notes, and store requisition forms. The underlying data arrives from ERP purchasing, WMS, store POS, and supplier delivery records. Citation tracing at this step means every conclusion drawn from purchasing and supplier material can be returned to the specific wording of a source document.
Supplier delivery data and store requisition forms live in different systems. For the same batch, the received quantity can be recorded under different measurement conventions on the two documents. Reconciliation therefore depends on the fields and the period each document actually states. The comparison below keeps the two documents separate rather than merging their quantities into one figure.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
Retrieval recalls candidate content by semantic or keyword path. The citation output is an array and its length can be zero, so a search that returns nothing still lets the downstream chain run. The knowledge base search node requires the associated knowledge bases to share the same vector model; libraries with different vector model identifiers cannot be associated together. This condition concerns the vector model identifier only and does not extend to other external systems.
The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold. It does not perform permission or entity isolation, and a retrieval result does not constitute business authorization for any procurement record. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF. ReRank requires a model and must be enabled according to configuration. Image retrieval requires image input and model capability. These paths are not all executed on every request.
Hypothetical drill sample: a chain supply center checks a supplier delivery note on 10 March 2026. The source text reads: "Supplier A delivered 1,200 units of item A on 8 March 2026, receiving warehouse East China Distribution Center, delivery note number HD-20260308-017." A store requisition form of the same date reads: "Twelve stores in the East China region requested 900 units of item A, requisition date 9 March 2026." The draft sentence under review is: "The item A delivered by Supplier A on 8 March has satisfied the full requisition demand of the East China stores on 9 March." The draft places a delivered quantity and a requested quantity into one conclusion. Neither source states a matching relationship between them, so the finding is pending verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Comparison and explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select the knowledge bases holding collective procurement contracts and delivery notes | First compare the vector model identifier of each library; exclude libraries whose identifiers differ |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Delivery note numbers use the full-text path; semantic questions use the vector path |
| Minimum relevance | No specific value set for this drill | This is a 0-1 threshold and applies only under semantic retrieval or ReRank |
| Citation limit | No specific value set for this drill | Measured in tokens; adjust after comparing against candidate chunk lengths |
| Result ReRank | Enable when a ReRank model is available | The ReRank score is used for filtering; skip this path when not enabled |
| Citation handoff | Check whether retrieval output is passed to the answering step | Compare each answer statement against the cited source text; an empty array still runs the chain |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as business authorization. The input is a knowledge base search request; the comparison is between the returned citation content and the procurement approval record. A retrieval result shows only that a document was recalled, and approval status must be checked separately.
- Using a similarity score to infer record ownership. The input is the minimum relevance setting and the candidate results; the comparison is between the score and the supplier the record belongs to. A score does not distinguish supplier or store scope.
- Equating a delivered quantity with a requested quantity. The input is the two source texts above; the comparison is between the 1,200 units on the delivery note and the 900 units on the requisition form. Neither document states a matching relationship, so a conclusion that demand is satisfied is not supported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the delivery note source text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample, then compare whether the draft introduces a matching relationship the source does not state. When the draft contains "has satisfied the full requisition demand," the finding is unsupported.
- Input the store requisition form source text from the hypothetical sample, then compare the requested quantity against the quantity convention the draft cites. The two belong to different documents with different periods, so the finding is pending verification.
- Input a configuration that associates two knowledge bases with different vector model identifiers, then compare the model identifiers in the configuration. When the identifiers differ, the combination cannot be associated; record it as a configuration mismatch and exclude it.
For the paper check of empty-result handoff, an explicit input array of [] can be used to check whether the downstream answering step still runs. This does not assert that a real search will return an empty array. All findings retain their evidence gaps. A pending review status does not indicate a lack of operating permission, and signing, reaching cooperation, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts.