What the documents look like
Promotion enrollment and price management centers on price, inventory, and campaign rhythm. It is a different line of work from advertising copy review. The everyday materials are the campaign enrollment form, the promotional price approval form, the inventory lock form, and the campaign retrospective form. The data sources named in the brief are the marketing back office, the ERP inventory system, and historical transaction prices.
The operating review and exception retrospective in this category has to answer one question: which material does a given conclusion cite, and do that material's version and status support the conclusion. Citation tracing is what makes a retrospective actionable. The authorization state of the material itself determines whether a conclusion can stand. An approval form that is still pending review does not support a statement that the price was approved.
Two features of this work shape the tracing step. First, the material set mixes forms with different lifecycles: an enrollment form, an approval form, a lock form, and a retrospective form are not interchangeable evidence. Second, a conclusion in a review report often compresses several fields into one sentence, which hides the gap between what a form records and what the sentence asserts. The retrieval side of this task therefore has to keep the cited text intact and hand it to the answering step for item-by-item comparison.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node accepts one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model. Knowledge bases with different vector models cannot be associated together. The node outputs cited content as an array, and the array length may be zero. A zero-length array means the output path still runs; it does not mean the workflow has errored out or terminated.
Cited content then passes to the answering step. The review compares each answer sentence against the cited source text. Displayed citations are judged against a traceable sample. A thinking process or a fluent answer does not substitute for source evidence. Material timeliness also needs checking: current-version and historical-version documents can both be used to test a source, and whether a citation is adopted still depends on review against the effective version.
Semantic recall and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. The same-vector-model requirement for associated knowledge bases does not extend to business-registration sites or other external systems. Retrieval is not authorization. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization require their own downstream implementation. The overall retrieval flow lists optional paths, and those paths do not all execute on every request. Image retrieval needs a corresponding image input and model capability. Reranking needs a rerank model and must be enabled in settings.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source text reads: "Campaign enrollment form (sample number A-01) records: the enrolling entity is a store operations group, and the campaign period is March 1 to March 7, 2025. Promotional price approval form (sample number B-02) has 'pending review' entered in its status field." The draft sentence under review reads: "This store has completed promotional price approval and may execute the campaign price." Checking item by item, the material shows only that the approval form sits in pending review. The draft sentence writes pending review as completed approval, which is an unsupported statement. The pending status does not show that the entity lacks operating permission, and it does not constitute completed approval.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists settings documented in the official material or implementation checks tied to this page's sample. The hypothetical starting values apply only to this paper exercise and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select two knowledge bases that share the same vector model | The official text permits association only when vector models match; check the identifier first and exclude non-matching ones |
| Citation limit | A hypothetical starting value of a number of tokens | This parameter controls cited content length in tokens; compare against the length of the sample material and adjust |
| Minimum relevance | A hypothetical starting value of one number in the 0-1 range | This value takes effect only under semantic retrieval or result reranking; compare against recall results for the sample question |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval with result reranking enabled | The sample contains numbered fields; hybrid retrieval with reranking makes source checking easier |
| Cited content output | Check whether the output array length is zero | A zero-length array still runs the output path; used to check the downstream handoff design |
| Citation input handoff | Check whether retrieval output is passed to the answering step | Compare each answer sentence against the cited source text to confirm the source is traceable |
Three common errors
- Treating pending review as completed approval. The input is the approval form source text, in which the status field reads "pending review." The comparison object is the value of the status field. The observable result is that the status field text and the draft sentence disagree. The draft sentence claims completed approval, and the material supports only pending review.
- Treating an empty citation array as a workflow error. The input is the empty array output by the search node. The comparison object is whether the output path runs. The observable result is whether the downstream node receives that output. The official text states that a zero-length array still runs the output path.
- Forcing knowledge bases with different vector models into one association. The input is the vector model identifier of each of the two knowledge bases. The comparison object is whether the identifiers match. The observable result is that when the identifiers differ, the two knowledge bases cannot be associated; record only the identifier check result and the actual observation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence. Compare the approval form status field against the draft sentence wording. The condition is met when the draft sentence wording disagrees with the status field text; the sentence is then judged unsupported.
- Input the empty array output by the search node. Compare whether the downstream node receives that output. The condition is met when the output path runs; do not claim that a fictional rule search necessarily returns an empty array.
- Input the vector model identifiers of the two knowledge bases. Compare whether the identifiers match. The condition is met when the identifiers differ and the association is excluded; do not run a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls, and do not invent a runtime result for an association that was never permitted.
Across all three checks, keep the evidence gap open where the material does not state a field. A pending request is not an approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination.