What the documents look like
Channel diversion work addresses regional and price order, separate from rebate calculation, which addresses rebate amounts. The materials in this category come from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records, and market inspections. The daily documents are diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices, and investigation photographs.
These materials do not share a timeline. Shipment records are generated by batch. Inspections and complaints arrive irregularly. Price screenshots carry the moment they were captured. An operating review that cites sources must therefore state which material a conclusion refers to, which version of that material, and which period it covers.
A complaint form may name a regional distributor and a complaint reason. An anti-counterfeit code record may state a destination region, a shipment date, and a quantity. An investigation photograph may show a shelf price without naming the store entity. Each of these carries a different level of completeness, and the review must preserve those differences rather than smoothing them into a single finding.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node selects one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Its output is a citation array, and the length may be zero. An empty array means the output path still runs; it does not mean the search raised an error or that the workflow stopped.
Citation content passes to the answering step, where each item is checked against the original text. The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold that takes effect only under semantic search or result reranking. It does not perform permission isolation or entity isolation. Hybrid search merges multiple retrieval paths through RRF, and reranking produces a 0–1 score used for filtering. None of these mechanisms decides whether a record falls inside the current authorization scope.
Document timeliness is checked against a current version and a historical version. Whether a given citation is adopted still depends on effective-version review.
Hypothetical exercise sample: A brand channel control group holds three materials. Material one is a diversion complaint form stating that the complained party is East China regional distributor A, the complaint reason is sale below the suggested retail price, and the complaint date is 10 March 2025. Material two is an anti-counterfeit code record stating that a batch of products was shipped to the East China region, with a shipment date of 18 February 2025 and a quantity of 200 units. Material three is an investigation photograph taken on 12 March 2025 showing a store shelf price below the suggested retail price; the photograph does not state the store entity name. The draft sentence to be assessed is: Distributor A sold that East China batch below the suggested retail price in March 2025.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists only settings or implementation checks that the official documents describe and that relate to this page's main task. The values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, with the reason for choosing them and the comparison object. They are not official defaults.
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical value for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Diversion complaint form base, anti-counterfeit code record base | First check whether both use the same vector model; if the models differ, they cannot be associated together |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point of 800 tokens | Complaint forms and code records are both short; a smaller value makes line-by-line checking easier, compared with 1500 tokens to see whether truncation occurs |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point of 0.5 | Used to filter low-relevance fragments, compared with 0.3 to observe changes in the number of recalled items |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Complaint forms contain numbered fields such as region and date, so hybrid search covers both semantics and keywords |
| Citation output handoff | Citation array passed to the answering step | Check that the answer corresponds item by item to the cited original text, and that the downstream path still runs with an empty array |
| Document timeliness check | One current version and one historical version | Use the two versions to test the source and record which version was actually adopted |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval result as an authorization conclusion. Input is material one and material two above. If the draft directly finds distributor A in violation, the comparison object is the gap that material three does not state the store entity name, and the observable result is that the entity cannot be matched. The correct action is to record the entity as pending verification.
- Writing a pending-review state as already effective. Input is a draft penalty notice. If the draft sentence states that the penalty has been executed, the comparison object is whether the notice carries a signature and an effective record, and the observable result is that only draft text exists. The correct action is to mark it pending review.
- Treating minimum relevance as an entity filter. Input is a query for East China region complaints. If the assumption is that lowering relevance will bring in records from other regions, the comparison object is the search parameter description stating that the value applies only to semantic search or result reranking, and the observable result is that the region field did not participate in filtering. The correct action is to check the region field separately.
How to verify the setup
- Input the original text of material one, the original text of material two, and the draft sentence. Compare whether the entity, period, and object in the draft sentence match the original text. Material three does not state the store entity, while the draft sentence points directly to distributor A. That sentence is unsupported and must be marked with an evidence gap.
- Input the paper case where the citation array is empty
[]. Compare whether the downstream answering step still runs and produces a prompt. If the downstream path stops because of the empty array, the handoff design does not cover the empty-citation branch. - Input two knowledge base identifiers that use different vector models. Compare whether the association condition is met. If the identifiers differ, record them as not associable together and exclude them. Do not run a cross-model search to compare missed recalls; record only the identifier difference actually observed.
This page addresses only channel diversion review, operating review and anomaly retrospective, and citation tracing. During operational handoff, which materials, actions, and requests sit at which authorization state cannot be treated as authorization execution through retrieval or a form.