What the documents look like
Promotion enrollment and price management in marketplace operations centers on price, inventory, and campaign rhythm. This work differs from product-title compliance review, which focuses on advertising language. The main data sources named in the brief are the Tmall marketing backend, the JD campaign backend, ERP inventory, and historical transaction prices. The daily documents are the campaign enrollment form, the promotional price approval sheet, the inventory lock sheet, and the campaign review sheet.
In store service and internal training, these materials support handover and cross-checking. Citation tracing requires that each conclusion can be returned to specific source text. The brief gives a weekly and per-campaign update frequency. This page does not derive batch synchronization, real-time triggers, or transaction-linked mechanisms from that frequency.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can select one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Its output is an array of citations, and the length may be zero. A zero-length array means the output path completes; it does not mean the workflow terminated with an error. Whether retrieval results reach the answering step, and whether each answer sentence corresponds to cited source text, requires manual checking. The minimum relevance setting is a filter threshold, not a permission or entity-isolation mechanism. Retrieval itself does not constitute authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. Source text one: a promotional price approval sheet submitted by a brand on 1 March 2024 states "the minimum final price during the campaign is not lower than 199 yuan; approval status is pending review." Source text two: the same brand's campaign enrollment form dated 5 March 2024 states "enrollment status is submitted; resource slot awaiting platform confirmation." Draft sentence to be judged: "The brand's promotional price has been approved and the campaign resource slot has been confirmed." In this sample, the subject, object, status, and date scope are complete. The evidence needed for judgment is the approval status and the resource-slot confirmation status.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Select the enrollment form base and the approval sheet base that use the same vector model | The official requirement is that only bases with the same vector model can be linked together; check the base identifiers first |
| Citation limit | Set a hypothetical starting value that covers the full text of both materials in tokens | Compare with the actual length of the two materials to avoid truncating key status fields |
| Minimum relevance | Use a hypothetical starting value only to filter low-relevance fragments | Compare with semantic retrieval or rerank scores; this value is not a permission filter |
| Search mode | Use full-text search or hybrid search for status fields | Compare with semantic retrieval results; exact status fields suit keyword matching |
| Question optimization | Leave off for this sample because the question is already explicit | Compare with results when it is on, to observe whether unrelated expansion appears |
| Citation output handoff | Check whether the citation array is passed to the answering step | Compare with the answer sentence by sentence to confirm each conclusion has corresponding source text |
Three common errors
- Treating a pending-review approval status as approved. Input: the approval sheet text "approval status is pending review." Comparison object: "has been approved" in the draft sentence. Observable result: the two status values do not match, and the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Treating submitted enrollment as a confirmed resource slot. Input: the enrollment form text "resource slot awaiting platform confirmation." Comparison object: "resource slot has been confirmed" in the draft sentence. Observable result: confirmation evidence is absent, and the draft sentence remains unverified.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorized execution. Input: the citation array returned by the knowledge base search. Comparison object: actual approval or platform confirmation records. Observable result: retrieval output exists while authorization evidence is missing, and price or resource-slot operations must not proceed on that basis.
How to verify the setup
- Input the approval sheet text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare the field values "pending review" and "has been approved." When the two values do not match, judge the draft sentence unsupported and record the evidence gap.
- Input the enrollment form text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare the field states "awaiting platform confirmation" and "confirmed." When confirmation evidence does not appear, judge the sentence unverified and do not supply an authorization clause.
- Input an explicit paper citation array of
[]. Check whether the downstream answering step accepts the empty result normally, and observe whether the empty array completes the output path. Do not claim that a fictional rule search necessarily returns an empty array.
This page addresses only marketplace promotion enrollment and price management, store service and internal training, and citation tracing. During operational handover, the authorization state of materials, operations, and requests must be distinguished; retrieval or a form must not be treated as authorized execution.