What the documents look like
Title and detail compliance work covers the truthfulness of promotional wording and the display of qualifications. It does not cover parcel delivery. The everyday materials are a product title table, detail page assets, an advertising prohibited-words list, and quality inspection reports. These materials come from the platform rules center, advertising law compliance checklists, the brand asset library, and inspection agency reports. The update frequency is weekly and on each new listing.
Operating reports and exception reviews need to fix the source of every title, every asset, and every report. Without that fixed source, a delisting, a complaint, or an administrative penalty risk cannot be traced back to a specific basis. This page addresses only citation source and tracing: within the path from retrieval to answer, whether the cited content can be checked, displayed, and carried forward by downstream steps.
Two facts shape this task. First, retrieval is not authorization. A search request returns citation content, and the citation array may have a length of zero; the output path still runs even when nothing is found. Second, the citation limit and the minimum relevance score act on content selection, not on business permission or record ownership. A relevance score is a filtering threshold, not a category, entity, or permission filter.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node selects one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model. Its output is an array of citations, and that array may be empty. The citation limit controls the maximum number of tokens cited per search. The minimum relevance score is a filtering threshold and applies only under semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF. Reranking produces a score from 0 to 1. A form collects values; business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each require their own downstream implementation.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source text is: "Title table, June 2025 version: a certain insulated bottle title contains 'most insulating'; advertising prohibited-words list, June 2025 version, places 'most' in the extreme-words category; inspection report Q-2025-0612, valid until 31 December 2025, submitted by Company A." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "This insulated bottle title is compliant and can be listed directly." The assessment requires the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The title table version, the prohibited-words list version, and the inspection report validity all fall within the June 2025 to December 2025 range. The title containing "most" and the prohibited-words list are mutually exclusive on the same field, so the draft sentence is not supported. If only the inspection report exists and no title table version record is present, that is an evidence gap and the item is recorded as pending verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Assumed starting point for this exercise | Comparison object and explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Select the title table, prohibited-words list, and inspection report as three bases | Check that the vector model identifiers match; exclude those that do not match and do not run a cross-model retrieval comparison |
| Citation limit | Set to 2000 tokens | Compare with the total length of the three source passages in this sample to confirm the cited content fully covers the fields needed for the judgment |
| Minimum relevance score | Set to 0.5 | Compare with the rerank score from 0 to 1; this is a filtering threshold only and does not carry permission or entity separation |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Compare with single semantic retrieval for hit results on identifier and model-number queries |
| Citation output handoff | Check whether the array is passed to the answer step | Check each answer against the cited source text; for an empty array, check the downstream design against the paper input [] |
| Material validity check | Test with current and historical document versions | Whether a citation is adopted still requires review against the valid version |
Reason for the assumed starting points: a citation limit of 2000 tokens covers the three source passages in this sample; a minimum relevance score of 0.5 is the starting point for this exercise and is adjusted after comparison with the rerank score. These values are not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval as authorization. Input is one knowledge base search request; the comparison object is the authorization status field; the observable result is that the search returns a citation array while no approval record exists. Retrieval output does not mean the business action is approved.
- Treating the minimum relevance score as a permission or entity filter. Input is a query with a relevance score of 0.5; the comparison object is the business ownership of returned records; the observable result is that records of unrelated businesses may still be recalled. Relevance is a filtering threshold and does not exclude unauthorized records.
- Treating an empty citation array as a workflow error. Input is the paper empty array []; the comparison object is the downstream node design; the observable result is that the path continues to run. An empty array does not equal an error termination.
How to verify the setup
- Input is the three source passages from the hypothetical sample and the draft sentence "This insulated bottle title is compliant and can be listed directly." The comparison object is the mutually exclusive values between the title containing "most" and the prohibited-words list. The observable result is that the draft sentence is not supported and is recorded as pending verification. The condition is met when the same subject, the same period, and the same field show a clear mutually exclusive value.
- Input is the hypothetical record with only the inspection report and no title table version. The comparison object is the list of fields required for the judgment. The observable result is that the title table version is missing. The condition is met when the record clearly marks the evidence gap and keeps the pending verification status.
- Input is the paper empty array []. The comparison object is the downstream handoff design. The observable result is that the path continues to run and the downstream step handles it as an empty citation. The condition is met when the downstream design explicitly handles an empty array, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval must return [].
All three verification items use the hypothetical source text and draft sentence given above. The expected results do not claim that any test has been run. Knowledge bases with different vector models cannot be linked together; check the identifiers first and exclude those that do not match. Image retrieval requires the corresponding image input and model capability. Reranking requires a rerank model and must be enabled according to the settings.