What the documents look like
Channel diversion review deals with regional and price order. It does not compute rebate amounts. The working materials are diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices, and investigation photographs. These arrive from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform pricing, distributor shipment records, and market inspections. In store service and internal training, staff use these materials to explain handling grounds to stores and to repeat conclusions under one shared source standard. Updates arrive weekly or irregularly, and materials often differ in time and status. Citation tracing requires that each outward statement return to specific source text and its valid scope.
The category difference matters here. A complaint form records what a complainant asserts, not what has been verified. An anti-counterfeit code record captures query activity for a code, which may include time and region of query. Neither document type by itself carries shipment facts. A penalty notice carries an authorization state that must be checked separately. Investigation photographs show what was captured at a moment. Because these four material types carry different evidentiary weight, a citation drawn from one cannot silently stand in for another.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model. Citation content is output as an array, and its length may be zero. An empty array still completes the output path; it does not mean the workflow has halted. Retrieval does not constitute authorization, and a similarity score does not perform entity or permission isolation. When materials exist in multiple versions, the current and historical versions must be checked, and whether a citation is adopted still depends on valid-version review.
Hypothetical drill sample: a brand channel control department receives a diversion complaint form whose text reads: "Complaint target: East China authorized distributor A; code involved: A-2024-0871; complaint grounds: the product bearing this code appears in a South China e-commerce store at a price below the suggested retail price; complaint date: 3 June 2024; attachment: one store screenshot." A separate anti-counterfeit code record reads: "Code A-2024-0871, first query time 28 May 2024, query region: South China." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "Investigation shows that distributor A shipped the product bearing code A-2024-0871 to South China for sale on 28 May 2024." The shipping party, shipping date, and shipping act in this draft sentence appear in neither the complaint form nor the code record.
The practical constraint is field-level. Query region is not shipping region. Complaint grounds are not verified facts. A retrieved citation array supplies material content only. Each outward statement must map to a named field in a named source document, and where a field is absent, the statement remains unsupported rather than confirmed or denied.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Assumed trial starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | One diversion review knowledge base | First check selected knowledge bases and material versions; associate together only after confirming matching vector model identifiers |
| Citation cap | Set against total length of this sample material | Compare against whether citation content covers the full complaint form and code record; no fixed number is adopted |
| Minimum relevance | Not enabled for this drill | This task centers on source-text comparison; a semantic threshold does not carry source verification |
| Search mode | Full-text search | Code, date, and region are exact fields; compare hit results against semantic search |
| Citation output | Array, empty permitted | When the array is empty, check whether the downstream answer step still receives it as designed |
| Material version check | One current version and one historical version | Compare the same code across both versions to confirm which version a citation corresponds to |
Three common errors
- Treating the query region in the anti-counterfeit code record as the shipping region. Input is the code record text above; comparison object is "shipped to South China for sale" in the draft sentence; observable result is that the record states only a query region and states no shipping act, so that part of the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Treating the complaint grounds in the complaint form as verified fact. Input is the complaint form text above; comparison object is the party and date in the draft sentence; observable result is that the complaint form states no shipping party and no shipping date, so those parts of the draft sentence lack a source.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization or penalty grounds. Input is the citation array output by the search node; comparison object is the authorization state of the penalty notice; observable result is that the citation array supplies material content only, and penalty execution requires a separately signed or approved notice.
How to verify the setup
- Input the complaint form and code record text above, and compare the draft sentence "distributor A shipped the product bearing code A-2024-0871 to South China for sale on 28 May 2024." Expected observation: the shipping party, shipping date, and shipping act have no corresponding fields in the source texts, so the sentence is judged unsupported.
- Input a hypothetical shipment record that explicitly reads "Code A-2024-0871, shipper: distributor A, shipment date: 28 May 2024, receiving region: South China," and compare the same draft sentence. Expected observation: each field in the sentence corresponds item by item to the record, so the sentence is judged source-supported.
- Input a paper-level empty array [] as citation output, and compare it against the design of the downstream answer step. Expected observation: the answer step handles empty citations as designed and produces no unsourced conclusion. This empty array is a paper input and does not mean that a real search necessarily returns an empty result.
Across all three checks, the comparison is same-party, same-period, same-field. A field with an explicitly mutually exclusive value is a contradiction. A field that is absent, or supported only by a related stage, is unsupported or pending verification. Retrieval and forms collect or return values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization require their stated downstream implementation.