What the documents look like
After-sales repair and reshipment work aims to restore a product to usable condition, and the closing action is usually not a direct refund. That difference shapes what an operating review or an exception review needs to pull from the knowledge base. The working material concentrates on four document types: repair applications, reshipment orders, inspection reports, and accessory outbound orders. These come from the after-sales system, the order system, repair sites, and the accessory warehouse WMS. Records update per order and per day, and the volume of orders determines whether retrieved content is enough to support a review conclusion. Three time-consuming stages appear in the documents as status fields: the decision between repair and reshipment, accessory coordination progress, and customer confirmation status. Retrieval can only reflect what has been recorded.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more libraries that use the same vector model. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together. The correct move is to check the model identifier first and exclude non-matching libraries, without running a cross-model search to compare missed recalls. Search modes include semantic search, full-text search, and hybrid search. Hybrid search merges multiple result paths through RRF, and RRF is a fusion process rather than a switch. The reference limit is measured in tokens. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic search or when result reranking is used. Question optimization performs coreference resolution and question expansion, and it adds an extra model call. The optional paths shown in the overall retrieval diagram are not all executed on every request: image retrieval requires an image input and model capability, and reranking requires a model and must be enabled in settings. Retrieval and relevance scores do not carry permission or entity isolation duties; retrieval itself is not authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a brand after-sales knowledge base holds a repair application record whose source text reads "Application WX-0417, object is a signed-for item, application status is pending inspection, authorization scope is limited to the inspection stage, no approval for repair or reshipment is recorded." A second document, an accessory outbound order, reads "Outbound order PJ-0417, corresponding to application WX-0417, outbound status is shipped, quantity and accessory model are recorded." The draft sentence to be judged is "WX-0417 has completed repair and been closed." Checking that sentence requires retrieving both documents and comparing the phrases "completed repair and been closed" against the source status fields "pending inspection" and "no approval recorded." Pending inspection does not equal completed repair, and no recorded approval does not equal approval. The draft sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Setting or check relevant to this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select one or more libraries using the same vector model | First verify the vector model identifier of the library holding the sample material, and exclude different models |
| Search mode | Compare semantic, full-text, and hybrid search against the test question | Use an identifier such as "WX-0417" to test full-text search, and status descriptions to test semantic search |
| Reference limit | Unit is tokens; test whether content stays complete using materials of different lengths | Use a hypothetical starting value for this exercise, and compare whether the status field is truncated at different limits |
| Minimum relevance | Takes effect only under semantic search or when result reranking is used | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then adjust the threshold; no fixed number is presupposed |
| Question optimization | Performs coreference resolution and question expansion | Compare the original question with the optimized question, and check whether the subject was altered incorrectly |
| Result reranking | Requires a model and must be enabled in settings | Rerank scores can be used for filtering, and do not guarantee the first result is a hit |
A hypothetical starting value for the reference limit in this exercise can be set to a small value that covers the complete status text of the sample material. The reason for choosing it is that the sample source text is short. The comparison method is to adjust the limit step by step and observe whether the status field is returned in full.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval results as authorization evidence. In the sample, the application status is pending inspection. Retrieving that record only shows the material exists; it does not show that repair or reshipment has been approved. For the check, input the draft sentence and the source status field, compare the two, and observe whether a conclusion appears that reads pending inspection as completed.
- Forcing association across libraries with different vector models. Libraries on different vector models cannot be associated together. The wrong approach is to associate them directly and then infer missed recalls or redundancy. For the check, verify the vector model identifier first, exclude non-matching libraries, and record the actual observation without inventing run results.
- Treating minimum relevance as a permission or entity filter. Minimum relevance is a filtering threshold and does not exclude unrelated business records or unauthorized records. For the check, input relevant and irrelevant samples, compare results before and after filtering, and observe whether a threshold change is misread as access control.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text "Application WX-0417, application status is pending inspection, no approval recorded" together with the draft sentence "WX-0417 has completed repair and been closed." Compare the status field with the conclusion field, and observe whether the draft sentence is judged unsupported. The condition is met when the judgment clearly preserves the evidence gap.
- Input the sample source text "Outbound order PJ-0417, outbound status is shipped" together with the same draft sentence. Compare the outbound status with the closing conclusion, and observe whether an inference appears that reads shipped as closed. The condition is met when the conclusion does not exceed the scope of the source text.
- Input an explicit paper-based empty result
[], and check how the downstream design handles an empty reference. Observe whether the output path still runs through. The condition is met when the empty result is recorded as no content retrieved, without claiming that a fictional rule necessarily returns empty.
This page addresses one scope only: after-sales repair and reshipment / operating reports and exception reviews / knowledge base retrieval and recall. Which materials, operations, and requests sit at what authorization state during an operations handover cannot be settled by treating retrieval or a form as authorization execution.