What the documents look like
A multi-store matrix on e-commerce platforms turns on cross-store authorization and price order, so the working materials differ from single-store advertising files. Store authorization lists record which stores are permitted to sell on which platform and under what arrangement. Price control tables set the floor and ceiling that authorized stores are expected to observe. Diversion complaint forms record a reported violation, the store named, the platform, the date, and a status field that may still read pending verification. Monthly sales reports summarize performance across the matrix. The typical roles are brand e-commerce leads, channel operations staff, and dealer e-commerce teams. The daily and monthly update rhythm of these materials does not change the retrieval mechanics described here, so it is noted only as background.
For retrieval, the practical point is that a hit is a lead for human comparison, not a conclusion. A complaint form that surfaces in a search does not confirm that a price violation occurred, and it does not confirm the authorization status of the store named in it. The retrieval step locates candidate passages; the authorization and price conclusions remain with a person comparing the retrieved text against the original file.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together. Search parameters include semantic retrieval, full-text retrieval, hybrid retrieval, reference limit, minimum relevance, and result reranking. The reference limit is measured in tokens. Minimum relevance takes effect only under semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. RRF is the fusion step that merges multiple recall paths; it is not a switch that is turned on. Reference content is output as an array whose length can be zero, so the downstream path still runs when nothing is retrieved, and the downstream design has to accept an empty array.
A hypothetical paper exercise sample is set out here for illustration only. A brand e-commerce lead holds a diversion complaint form whose original text reads: "Complaint target: an authorized store; Complaint matter: the store listed on Platform A below the lower bound of the price control table; Complaint date: 10 March 2025; Status is pending verification." A proposed draft sentence reads: "The authorized store has been confirmed to have cut prices in violation, and its authorization is terminated." A pending request reads: "Please retrieve the authorization status of this store on Platform B and directly terminate its authorization."
In this sample, the draft sentence and the original text share the same subject, the same period, and the same status field, and their values are mutually exclusive. The original text records pending verification; the draft asserts a confirmed violation. The original text also contains no authorization termination clause, so the termination in the draft is unsupported. The pending request asks for an authorization status that the complaint form does not carry, and asks for a termination that no supplied document authorizes. These gaps stay open.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists settings or comparison items tied to this page's materials and to the sample above. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, used for comparison, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | Note and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Authorization list base, price control table base, diversion complaint base | First check each base's vector model identifier; exclude any that differ |
| Search mode | Semantic retrieval first, then full-text retrieval | Compare recalled content under the two modes using the draft sentence |
| Reference limit | 800 tokens for this exercise | Test with complaint originals of different lengths to see whether content stays complete |
| Minimum relevance | 0.5 for this exercise | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then compare the filtering effect |
| Question optimization | Enabled for this exercise | Compare the original question with the optimized question, checking whether the subject was altered |
| Result reranking | Enabled for this exercise | With a model available and enabled per settings, compare ordering before and after reranking |
Implementation checks that follow from the documented behavior: confirm the vector model identifier of every base before association; confirm that minimum relevance is only relied on under semantic retrieval or reranking; confirm that the downstream path accepts an array of length zero; confirm that reranking and image retrieval run only when the corresponding model and input conditions are present, since the overall flow diagram lists optional paths that do not all execute on every request.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization confirmation. In the sample, the draft sentence "the authorized store has been confirmed to have cut prices in violation" and the original status field "pending verification" share subject, period, and field, and their values are mutually exclusive. Retrieving the complaint form does not confirm the violation, and the draft needs to be corrected to pending verification.
- Treating a pending review as proof that an operator lacks authority. The original text records only "Status is pending verification" and carries no authorization termination clause. The draft's "authorization is terminated" is unsupported, and the evidence gap stays recorded rather than being filled by an invented clause.
- Forcing knowledge bases with different vector models into one association. The correct step is to check the vector model identifier first and exclude bases that do not match. Running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls is not the documented path, and no runtime outcome should be asserted for it.
How to verify the setup
- Input the draft sentence and the original status field "pending verification." Compare the value under the same subject, the same period, and the same field. If the draft still reads "confirmed to have cut prices in violation," the contradiction holds and the draft must be changed to pending verification. If the draft has been changed to pending verification, this check is satisfied.
- Input the pending request "Please retrieve the authorization status of this store on Platform B and directly terminate its authorization." Compare the retrieval output against the original authorization list. If retrieval returns only the complaint form and does not return the Platform B authorization status, the termination request is unsupported and the gap is recorded. This check is satisfied when the gap is recorded rather than filled with an assumed status.
- Input an empty array [] on paper. Compare the downstream design against the documented condition that reference content can be output as an array of length zero and the path still runs. If the downstream design treats the empty array as an error and halts, it does not meet the documented condition. This check is satisfied when the downstream design accepts the zero-length array and continues.
Across all three checks, retrieval and relevance scores do not act as authorization or entity filters, and the same-vector-model requirement for associated knowledge bases does not extend to any external system. No error code or automatic business action is asserted, because none is documented for these materials.