What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream selection happens before a broadcast. The core judgement is whether a product can be sold and whether it suits on-camera demonstration. The working documents are sample evaluation forms, quality inspection reports, supplier qualification files and prohibited-item lists. Source material comes from supplier submissions, testing-agency reports, platform negative catalogues and historical return rates. In store-service and internal-training settings, staff cite these documents when explaining a conclusion to a store or to colleagues, and they keep a traceable checking path. Citation tracing answers three questions: which material a conclusion came from, what the valid scope of that material is, and whether the material currently sits in a citable state.
The search node returns citations as an array, and the length may be zero. Even when nothing is found, the output path still runs. An empty citation result is therefore an observable normal output that downstream design has to carry; it is not by itself an interruption of the flow.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
Knowledge-base search can only associate knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together. At the checking step, confirm the vector-model identifier first, exclude bases that do not match, and record what was observed. Do not run cross-model retrieval to compare recall differences.
Semantic retrieval and the minimum relevance value are recall and filtering settings. They do not carry permission or entity-isolation functions. A similarity value does not distinguish business ownership, and a retrieval result is not an authorization credential. Forms collect field values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, which is part of the retrieval process and not a standalone switch. Image retrieval needs image input and the corresponding model capability. ReRank needs a model and is enabled according to settings. Optional paths shown in the documentation flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them. Thinking budget controls model reasoning strength and is a different setting from the citation token limit.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample (for desk checking, not a real record)
Material text supplied for checking: A supplier qualification file states the entity as "Example Supply Chain A" with a validity period from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025. A testing-agency report states the commissioning party as "Example Supply Chain A", the sample name as "Example Insulated Cup 500ml", the report date as 10 March 2025, and the conclusion as "the tested items meet the commissioning requirements". A sample evaluation form states the evaluation object as "Example Insulated Cup 500ml", the evaluation stage as "pending review", and the evaluation date as 12 March 2025.
Draft sentence to be judged: This product has completed quality inspection and its qualification is valid, so it can enter the livestream selection list.
Checking points: the qualification file and the testing report share the same entity, and the period covers the report date. The sample evaluation form is at "pending review" and does not state that review was completed. The draft sentence presents a pending-review item as completed and adds an listing conclusion that is not stated, so it is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Checking item | Setting or action relevant to this page | How to observe and record |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select knowledge bases that use the same vector model for search | Record the selected base identifiers and vector-model identifiers; exclude those that do not match |
| Citation content output | The search node outputs citations as an array, with length possibly zero | Record the array length and content; pass empty arrays to downstream design |
| Citation input handling | Retrieval output goes to the answering step; compare each statement against the cited original text | Record the correspondence between answer sentences and cited original text |
| Citation display check | Use a traceable sample to check original-text display | Record whether displayed text matches the source document text |
| Material validity check | Test sources with current-version and historical-version documents | Record version identifiers; adopting a citation still requires review against the valid version |
| Search parameters | Semantic retrieval, full-text retrieval, hybrid retrieval and result reranking are enabled per settings | Record which items are actually enabled and the retrieval mode; do not treat optional paths as always executed |
Hypothetical starting value for this exercise: the citation limit is set to 2000 tokens. The reason for choosing this value is that it comfortably holds several short citations in the paper sample and allows truncation behaviour to be observed. The comparison object is the change in citation count for the same sample at a lower token value. This value is a starting point for this exercise, not an official default.
Three common errors
- Writing a pending-review state as completed. Input: the sample evaluation form text "evaluation stage is pending review". Comparison object: the draft sentence "has completed quality inspection". Observable result: the draft sentence lacks evidence of completed review and should be changed to a to-be-verified statement.
- Treating a retrieval result as an authorization credential. Input: one citation content array. Comparison object: whether an approval or authorization record exists. Observable result: the citation content alone cannot confirm authorization status, and the evidence gap remains.
- Associating knowledge bases that use different vector models. Input: two knowledge bases with different vector-model identifiers. Comparison object: whether the vector-model identifiers match. Observable result: when identifiers do not match, exclude that base and do not run cross-model retrieval comparisons.
How to verify the setup
- Input the qualification file and testing report text from the hypothetical sample. Compare whether the entity names match and whether the validity period covers the report date. Observable result: when the entity matches and the period covers the report date, the source can be marked as within its validity period.
- Input the draft sentence "This product has completed quality inspection and its qualification is valid, so it can enter the livestream selection list". Compare it against the sample evaluation form's "pending review" state and the unstated listing conclusion. Observable result: the draft sentence is unsupported and should be marked as to-be-verified.
- Input an explicit paper citation array
[]. Compare whether the downstream design carries an empty citation and continues execution. Observable result: when downstream handles it as an empty result without treating it as a flow interruption, empty-citation handling holds.