What the documents look like
Near-expiry markdown work follows the shelf-stock lifecycle rather than per-order weighing and sorting. Operating reports and exception reviews draw on four document families: near-expiry lists, markdown approvals, damage write-off forms, and promotional price tags. The underlying data arrives from POS stock-age records, store inspections, ERP inventory, and quality inspection records, updated daily or by shift. Citation tracing asks a narrow question: can each conclusion in a report point back to a specific source document, and is the cited version still within its valid range?
The four document families carry different states. A near-expiry list records a batch, an inspection status, and a shelf-life date. A markdown approval records a requested discount and an approval status. A write-off form records removal from saleable stock. A price tag records a displayed price. A report sentence that treats a pending approval as a completed markdown, or a displayed tag as proof of sale, has moved past what the source states. The tracing step exists to catch that movement before the review is circulated.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node returns cited content as an array, and the array length may be zero. A zero-length output still lets the downstream chain run. Citation tracing therefore has to separate two conditions: retrieval returned nothing, and the workflow stopped with an error. Treating an empty array as a failure misreads the node's documented behavior.
Libraries can be associated together only when they share the same vector model. Libraries with different vector models cannot be associated for joint search. The tracing check verifies the identifier first and excludes libraries that do not match, rather than running a cross-model search to compare recall.
A hypothetical paper exercise sample, clearly labelled as such and not drawn from any real record: the near-expiry list for the 12 March 2025 shift at Store A records batch B-0312-07, yogurt, 6 units, shelf life to 15 March 2025, inspection status pending markdown approval. A separate markdown approval form, number SP-0312-11, requests a 30 percent discount for batch B-0312-07 and shows approval status pending review. The draft sentence under review reads: "Batch B-0312-07 has completed markdown approval and was sold at a 30 percent discount."
Comparing the draft against the two source lines: the approval status is pending review, which does not amount to completed approval, and no record supports the sale. The draft sentence is unsupported by the cited material and the item remains to be verified. A pending request is not an approval, and an offered discount is not an executed sale.
Configuration and implementation checks
The settings below relate to citation tracing for operating reports and exception reviews. Numeric starting points are hypothetical exercise values chosen for this page, not official defaults, and each is compared against a stated reference.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical exercise starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge libraries | Select the near-expiry list library and the approval library that carry the same vector model | Verify the identifier and exclude libraries with a different vector model; do not run cross-model joint search |
| Citation token limit | Start at a value covering one batch's source text | Compare against the length of the single-batch source text so key fields are not truncated |
| Minimum relevance | Start at a value that recalls the pending-review source text | Compare against the pending-review sample and observe whether the approval form text is returned |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Compare against pure semantic search; batch and form numbers depend on keyword matching |
| Cited content output | Accept the array, including a zero-length result | Use the paper input [] to check how the downstream step handles an empty citation list |
| Source version check | Test the current version and a historical version separately | Compare the cited source version; whether it is adopted still depends on a valid-version review |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval output as authorization to act. The search node returns cited content only. A pending approval status does not authorize a markdown execution, and a form value is not a completed business approval.
- Treating minimum relevance as a permission or entity filter. Relevance is a filtering threshold. It does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records, and retrieval does not perform authorization decisions.
- Treating an empty citation array as a workflow failure. Citation length may be zero, and the downstream chain still runs on an empty array. This condition needs to be distinguished from an error that halts the workflow.
How to verify the setup
- Input the near-expiry list source text and the pending-review approval form source text from the exercise sample above. Compare the draft sentence "Batch B-0312-07 has completed markdown approval and was sold at a 30 percent discount" against the stated approval status. Observe whether the draft is judged unsupported. The expected result is that the item remains to be verified.
- Input the paper citation array []. Compare whether the downstream step continues to run. Observe whether the output chain proceeds. The expected result is that an empty array does not trigger an error halt.
- Input the identifiers of two libraries with different vector models. Compare the association condition. Observe whether they are excluded. The expected result is that joint association is not performed across models, and the actual observation is recorded.