What the documents look like
Fresh-food supplier claims pursue quality responsibility for goods at arrival. They do not address ordinary in-store shrinkage. This distinction shapes the material set that store service and internal training must handle: quality exception forms, photo evidence, deduction notices, and claim reconciliation statements. Supporting records come from quality inspection systems, WMS receiving results, supplier contracts, and financial reconciliation. An error in how these sources are cited can produce supplier disputes, absorbed spoilage cost, or supply interruption.
The citation tracing task at this stage is to keep every statement in a draft handover or training example traceable to a specific source document, and to keep unsupported statements marked as unsupported. The data update frequency is per batch and monthly; this page's task does not depend on that frequency, so it is not expanded here.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model. Its output is an array of citations, and the length may be zero; when the array is empty, that output path still completes. The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold that takes effect only under semantic search or result reranking. That value does not perform permission checks, entity isolation, or authorization decisions. Hybrid search merges multiple retrieval paths through RRF. Reranking requires a rerank model and must be enabled according to settings. Image retrieval requires image input and corresponding model capability. These optional paths do not mean every request executes all of them. Retrieval by itself is not authorization. A form collecting values does not mean business verification, approval, database writes, or external synchronization have occurred.
Hypothetical drill sample: a store receives one delivery. The quality inspection record reads: "2024-03-12 arrival batch A-0312, 12 boxes sampled, 3 boxes of leafy greens wilted, judged as arrival quality exception, responsibility points to supplier." The WMS receiving sheet reads: "Batch A-0312, received quantity 200 boxes, receiving conclusion: partially nonconforming, moved to pending area." A draft handover sentence reads: "The quality issue for this batch is confirmed, the deduction notice has been issued, and the supplier has agreed to compensate." To be determined: whether this draft sentence is supported by the available materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Associate only the base holding this store's claim materials | Check the vector model identifier first, compare against each candidate base, exclude mismatches |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Compared with semantic search alone, identifier-type queries depend more on keyword hits |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetically set to 0.4 | A drill starting point, compared with the number of recalled items when this filter is off; not an official default |
| Citation limit | Hypothetically set to 3000 tokens | A drill starting point, compared with citation completeness at 1500 tokens |
| Reranking | Enabled according to settings | Compared with ordering when reranking is off; requires a rerank model |
| Question optimization | Enabled for multi-turn follow-up scenarios | Compared with recall on continuous follow-ups when off |
Three common errors
- Treating minimum relevance as a permission or entity filter. Input: a retrieval query that touches another supplier. Comparison: this threshold only filters low-relevance results and has no relation to authorization decisions. Observable result: changing the threshold does not change whether unauthorized records are returned; authorization still requires a separate system implementation.
- Treating retrieval output as an already-authorized action. Input: the draft sentence above, "the deduction notice has been issued, and the supplier has agreed to compensate." Comparison: the materials state only the arrival quality exception and the receiving conclusion; they do not state that a deduction notice was issued or that the supplier agreed. Observable result: the sentence remains unsupported and the evidence gap must be recorded.
- Forcing knowledge bases with different vector models into a shared association. Input: two knowledge bases with different vector model identifiers. Comparison: the association condition requires the same vector model. Observable result: mismatched bases should be excluded and recorded; do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.
How to verify the setup
- Input the quality inspection record and WMS receiving sheet text from the hypothetical sample, and compare whether the draft sentence matches the source text on the same subject, same period, and same field. Condition met: the facts stated in the draft sentence can be found in the source text; otherwise record as unsupported.
- Input a paper empty result
[]and compare whether the downstream answer step still completes and gives a no-citation notice. Condition met: the downstream does not break on the empty array and does not fabricate citation sources. - Input two knowledge base identifiers with different vector model identifiers and compare whether they are associated together. Condition met: mismatched identifiers are excluded and recorded, and no cross-model retrieval comparison is executed.