What the documents look like
JD POP third-party store operations centre on open-platform dispute rules and warranty-period service records. The working materials named for this category are the product information table, the dispatch timeliness agreement, the dispute handling form and the warranty-period service record. These materials update daily and per order. In store service and internal training, retrieval and recall serve one purpose: locate the original passages from those materials that relate to a current handover or reply, so a person can check them. The materials carry business facts. A retrieval result is a candidate citation only. It does not grant authorization, record an approval or fix responsibility.
Two features of this category shape the retrieval step. First, dispute handling and warranty service depend on the exact state of a document at a point in time, so a passage that records a pending step can be mistaken for a settled outcome. Second, the same order can appear across several materials with different roles, so a passage about one field must not be read as evidence about another field.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can be linked to one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Knowledge bases using different vector models cannot be linked together. The citation content is output as an array whose length can be zero, and the output path still runs when nothing is found.
The minimum relevance value is a 0-1 figure that filters out low-relevance results. It takes effect only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. It is a filter threshold and does not act as a permission or entity isolation control. Question optimization performs coreference resolution and question expansion, calls the model an extra time, and can change how a subject is phrased. RRF is a merge step that combines multiple retrieval channels; it is a process, not a switch.
Hypothetical drill sample. Source passage one: the product information table records that a certain vacuum flask has a warranty period of 12 months after signed receipt. Source passage two: the dispatch timeliness agreement states dispatch within 48 hours after payment. Source passage three: the dispute handling form records that the buyer claims the lid leaks and that the seller has not yet submitted evidence. Draft sentence to be judged: this order is past its warranty period, so the seller does not need to handle the leak claim. Checking requires comparing the subject, object and period in the draft sentence against source passage one. Source passage one does not state the signed receipt date for this order, so whether the warranty period has passed is unsupported and cannot be judged as passed. The draft sentence also turns the not-yet-submitted evidence into no need to handle, which goes beyond the source text.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Select one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model | Confirm the vector model identifier for the product information table, dispatch timeliness agreement, dispute handling form and warranty-period service record |
| Search mode | Semantic retrieval, full-text retrieval or hybrid retrieval | Compare recall across the three modes for terms such as warranty period, order number and lid leak |
| Citation limit | Unit is token; controls the maximum content cited per search | The flask warranty passage is short, so compare completeness against a longer dispute handling form passage |
| Minimum relevance | 0-1 value; effective only in semantic retrieval or result reranking | Hypothetical trial starting value 0.5, chosen to observe whether relevant passages survive at a middle threshold before comparing with 0.3 and 0.7 |
| Question optimization | Coreference resolution and question expansion | Check whether the optimized question alters the order subject |
| Result reranking | ReRank model performs a second ordering, score 0-1 | With many candidates, compare order before and after reranking; with few candidates in the sample, it may be left off |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. In the sample, the dispute handling form records only the buyer claim and the fact that the seller has not yet submitted evidence. Retrieving that form does not mean the seller is authorized to skip handling. Check: input source passage three and compare whether the draft sentence writes no need to handle. If that conclusion appears, it exceeds the source text.
- Treating an unstated field as a negative finding. Source passage one does not state the signed receipt date for this order, so whether the warranty period has passed is unsupported. Check: input source passage one and compare the draft sentence's past its warranty period. If the source has no signed receipt date, record an evidence gap and do not write that the warranty period has not passed.
- Treating a pending or unsubmitted step as decided. Source passage three states the seller has not yet submitted evidence; pending submission does not equal abandoning evidence. Check: input source passage three and compare the draft sentence's no need to handle. If it appears, it confuses stage states.
How to verify the setup
- Input source passage one and the draft sentence this order is past its warranty period. Compare subject, object, period and field. Source passage one has no signed receipt date, so the expected result is that whether the warranty period has passed is unsupported and the draft sentence cannot be judged as holding. If retrieval returns warranty records for other orders, record them as pending verification rather than as evidence for this order.
- Input source passage three and the draft sentence the seller does not need to handle the leak claim. Compare the source state with the draft conclusion. Source passage three states only that evidence has not yet been submitted, so the expected result is that no need to handle is unsupported. If retrieval returns an empty array, check downstream design against the documented fact that citation length can be zero, and do not infer that the dispute handling form does not exist.
- Input the request to be judged: please confirm from the warranty-period service record whether this order is within warranty. Compare whether the material the request needs falls inside the linked knowledge base scope. If the warranty-period service record is not linked or has not finished training, the expected result is to record an evidence gap, not to run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall. Retrieval and recall do not decide permissions; whether the order is within warranty must be confirmed by a person with access after checking the materials.