What the documents look like
Overseas stock replenishment work in this category turns on four document families: replenishment plans, warehouse inbound appointments, inventory age tables, and last-mile delivery orders. Source systems include overseas warehouse WMS, ERP sales forecasts, freight forwarder systems, and carrier bills. Third-party overseas warehouses can serve several sales channels, and the seller allocates stock across them, so the available, in-transit, and frozen quantities for one batch may appear under different fields in different systems. When a training material or a store reply cites a replenishment rule, an appointment status, an inventory-age basis, or a delivery responsibility, the citation has to point back to a specific document and a specific effective version. The brief records weekly and daily update frequencies; this page only records source dates as stated and does not infer batch synchronization or real-time mechanisms.
For citation tracing, this means a retrieved passage is evidence of what a document says, not evidence of what a store or trainee is permitted to do. A replenishment plan stating an upper limit does not by itself grant submission rights. A retrieval hit inside a selected knowledge base does not authorize execution, appointment changes, or cost confirmation.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can select one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model as the retrieval scope. Its output is a citation array, and the length can be zero; an empty array still completes the output path. Retrieval results pass to the answering stage, where each answer sentence is checked against the cited source text. Answer fluency does not substitute for source evidence.
The minimum relevance setting is a filter threshold and takes effect only under semantic retrieval or result reranking. It does not act as a permission or entity isolation control, and retrieval itself does not constitute authorization. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF. Reranking requires a rerank model and must be enabled by configuration. Image retrieval requires image input and matching model capability. The authorization boundary for store service and internal training is this: retrieving a replenishment plan or an appointment record only shows that the content was recalled inside the selected knowledge base scope. It does not show that a store or trainee has obtained permission to execute replenishment, modify an appointment, or confirm costs.
Configuration and implementation checks
Hypothetical drill sample for this page only. Source text to be checked: "The 10 March 2025 version of the East China Warehouse Replenishment Plan states that SKU-A has a replenishment upper limit of 200 units for the period 11 March to 17 March, and that this limit is calculated from the 9 March overseas warehouse WMS available-stock snapshot." Draft sentence to be judged: "The store may submit SKU-A replenishment directly at the 200-unit upper limit from 11 March to 17 March, with no further inventory-age check." The configuration rows below relate only to this page's feature and primary task.
| Configuration or check item | Use on this page | Condition to judge |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Limit retrieval scope | Check the selected knowledge bases and material versions first; only knowledge bases with the same vector model can be associated together |
| Citation content output | Carry retrieval results | Output is a citation array; length may be zero, and an empty array does not mean the workflow terminated with an error |
| Citation input handoff | Check answer sources | Check whether retrieval output is passed to the answering stage, and compare each answer sentence with the cited source text |
| Citation display check | Keep traceable samples | Use the source text and version date as the basis; do not substitute a thinking process for source evidence |
| Material timeliness check | Distinguish versions | Test sources with the current version and a historical version; whether a citation is adopted still depends on effective-version review |
| Minimum relevance | Filter low-relevance results | Takes effect only under semantic retrieval or result reranking; not a permission or entity isolation measure |
The hypothetical starting value of 200 units in the sample is chosen only because it appears in the quoted plan text, and it is compared against the same field in the same plan version. It is not described as an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. Input is the quoted 10 March plan text with the 200-unit upper limit. The error is to read "upper limit of 200 units" as granting the store submission rights. The comparison should be whether that plan states store submission rights and the authorizing party; if the plan does not state them, record the point as unsupported.
- Writing a pending status as approved. Input is an inbound appointment record showing "pending review." The error is to conclude the appointment is effective. The comparison should be between the appointment status field and the effective condition; only an explicit approval record supports a conclusion that the appointment is effective.
- Combining different periods or different fields into a contradiction. Input is the 9 March WMS available-stock snapshot and the upper-limit value in the 10 March plan. The error is to call the two a conflict. The comparison should hold the same subject, same period, and same field; when the field or the period differs, the point can only be recorded as pending verification.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source text and the draft sentence above. Compare whether "submit directly" and "with no further inventory-age check" have corresponding authorization and inventory-age statements in the source text. When the source text does not state them, the result should be unsupported, and the evidence gap is retained.
- Input a paper inbound appointment record explicitly marked "pending review." Compare its status field with an approval record, and observe whether the downstream answer writes pending review as approved. That wording, if it appears, is a handoff error.
- Use a paper input of an empty array [] to check empty-citation handoff. Compare whether the downstream answering stage still completes and marks that there is no cited source. This observation only verifies the empty-array handoff design; it does not claim that a retrieval of an invented rule must return [].