What the documents look like
Price and display auditing for chain stores happens during ordinary trading periods, and the emphasis stays on whether standards continue to be executed after opening. The working materials are store visit photographs, price tag lists, display standards and rectification notices. Supervisory systems, POS price tables, store cameras and head office promotion calendars supply the surrounding data. Updates arrive mainly by week and by month. For store service and internal training, the store visit photographs, price tag lists and rectification notices serve as traceable material handed to store managers and regional supervisors for checking.
Citation tracing in this setting means that any price or display requirement appearing in an answer or a training document must point back to a specific document and a specific version. A rectification notice states a requirement and a deadline. It does not, by itself, record that the work was done or accepted. A price tag list shows what was listed at a point in time. It does not, by itself, show what a customer saw on a different day. Keeping these document roles separate is the whole point of the exercise.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can select one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model for vector search. Its output is an array of cited content, and the length may be 0. When nothing is found, the output path still completes. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together. The retrieval output then goes to the answering step, where each answer is checked line by line against the cited source text.
The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold. It takes effect only under semantic retrieval or when result re-ranking is used. It does not act as a permission filter or an entity isolation filter, and it does not separate stores, staff or unauthorized records. Hybrid retrieval merges several result paths through RRF. Re-ranking requires a model and must be enabled in the settings. Image retrieval requires image input and matching model capability. The optional paths drawn in the overall retrieval diagram do not all run on every request.
The citation limit controls, in tokens, how much content a single search may cite. Thinking budget and the citation token limit are different settings and cannot be substituted for one another.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads, "Store visit photographs from the East China region in March 2025 show that the end-cap price tag at a Class A store matched the POS price table; a rectification notice from the same month required the price tag replacement to be completed by 31 March." The draft sentence under review reads, "The store completed the price tag replacement by 31 March." The subject is the store, the object is the price tag replacement, the status is completed, and the effective scope is on or before 31 March. The source material states only that the rectification notice set a requirement. It records no completion record and no acceptance signature. The finding is not supported, and completion evidence or an acceptance record would be needed. This sample is a paper exercise and did not occur.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select the price and display library that uses one vector model | Compare the vector model identifier across libraries and exclude any library whose identifier differs |
| Search mode | Semantic retrieval together with full-text retrieval | Observe hit behaviour separately for price tag numbers and model codes versus natural language questions |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point of 800 tokens | Compare against the length of the cited source text in this sample and confirm the full text fits |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point of 0.3 | Compare against the sample hit score and observe whether the target source text is filtered out |
| Result re-ranking | Enabled according to the settings | Compare the ranking position of the sample source text before and after re-ranking |
| Cited content output | Inspect the output array | Check whether the array contains the sample source text; a length of 0 is permitted |
These numbers are hypothetical starting points for this exercise. They are not official default values. They need to be compared against the actual length and score of the sample source text before any adjustment.
Three common errors
- Treating a requirement in a rectification notice as a completed fact. The input is the rectification notice text above together with the draft sentence. The comparison is between "required to be completed" and "completed". The observable result is that the material contains no completion record, so the draft sentence is not supported.
- Treating the minimum relevance value as a permission or entity filter. The input is the sample source text and the minimum relevance setting. The comparison is between the relevance threshold and the authorization scope. The observable result is that the threshold affects recall ordering only and does not distinguish store or staff permissions.
- Associating knowledge bases that use different vector models. The input is the vector model identifiers of two knowledge bases. The comparison is whether the identifiers match. The observable result is that mismatched identifiers cannot be associated together, so the excluded library is removed and the selection is repeated.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source material and the draft sentence above. Compare the completion status in the draft sentence against the requirement stated in the source. The observable result is that the draft sentence lacks completion evidence and is judged not supported.
- Input the sample source text and the hypothetical citation limit of 800 tokens. Compare the length of the source text against the limit. The observable result is that the full source text appears in the cited array; if it is truncated, adjust the limit.
- Input the sample source text and the hypothetical minimum relevance of 0.3. Compare the sample hit score against the threshold. The observable result is that the source text is retained when the score exceeds the threshold, and when the score falls below it, the gap is recorded and the source text is checked against whether it should have been recalled.
All of the above are paper checks. No retrieval or test was actually run. An empty result can be carried forward by checking the downstream design against an explicit paper input of an empty array. This page does not claim that a fictional rule search necessarily returns an empty array.
This page addresses only chain store price and display auditing, store service and internal training, and citation tracing. At operational handover, the authorization state of materials, operations and requests must be established separately. Retrieval and forms are not authorization.