What the documents look like
Creator special-event sales cooperation centres on external creator fulfilment and commission settlement. The operating report and exception review must reconcile four document types: the creator cooperation agreement, the commission setting sheet, the sample shipment sheet, and the livestream performance report. These materials update per event or per week, and their sources span selected alliance data, creator marketplace data, creator historical data, and shop transaction details. When a report citation cannot be tied to a specific document and a valid version, commission settlement disputes and false-traffic problems become difficult to locate during review.
This page addresses only citation source and tracing within operating reports and exception review. It does not treat a retrieval result or a completed form as authorised execution. The three industry facts that shape this step are: the cooperation depends on external creator fulfilment rather than internal scheduling, so the cited document must identify the creator and the specific event; settlement disputes are the typical consequence of a broken citation chain, so the commission setting sheet and the agreement must be traceable to the same event; and the materials update per event or per week, so a citation must carry a version reference that can be compared against the current document set.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
Citation source work must separate four things: behaviour the node already performs, fields that are actually configurable, manual reconciliation actions, and business actions that require a separate downstream implementation. The knowledge base search node accepts one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and outputs a citation array whose length may be zero. An empty array does not mean the workflow has errored or terminated. Whether the retrieval output is passed to the answering step, and whether the answer corresponds line by line to the cited source text, are manual reconciliation actions.
Semantic recall and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. Retrieval itself does not constitute authorisation. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together; the identifier should be checked first and non-matching bases excluded. A cross-model retrieval should not be run in order to compare missed recalls.
The overall retrieval flow lists optional paths that are not executed on every request. Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability. Rerank requires an available rerank model and must be enabled through its setting. The RRF step is a fusion process for combining multiple result channels; it is not a switch that is turned on.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source text reads: "Party A and Party B signed the creator special-event cooperation agreement on 1 March 2025, agreeing that the special event date is 20 March 2025; the commission setting sheet states that the commission rate for this event is fifteen percent; the sample shipment sheet shows the sample was dispatched on 10 March 2025." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "This creator special-event cooperation has taken effect, and commission is settled at fifteen percent." Reconciliation must compare the same subject, the same period, and the same field. Signing, cooperation reached, and contract effective are three distinct facts. The material shows only signing and an agreed date; it does not state the conditions for effectiveness. The commission setting sheet states only a rate; it does not state that settlement has been completed. The draft sentence is unsupported, and the evidence gaps remain: effectiveness terms unknown, settlement status unknown.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge base | Select the knowledge base holding the creator cooperation agreement and the commission setting sheet, built on the same vector model | Check the selected knowledge base identifier and the document version; only the same vector model may be associated together |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Compare candidate results against semantic retrieval and full-text retrieval separately; numbered and percentage content depends on keyword matching |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point of 3000 tokens | Compare against the length of the sample material to confirm that key sentences in the agreement, commission sheet, and shipment sheet can be cited |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point of 0.3 | Compare against the candidate set with filtering disabled, and observe whether low-relevance fragments are excluded |
| Result rerank | Enable when a rerank model is available | Compare ranking changes against unranked results; the rerank score is used for filtering |
| Citation output handoff | Check whether the citation array is passed to the answering step | Compare the answer sentence line by line against the sample source text; check the downstream design when the array is empty |
Three common errors
- Treating a signing record as an effective contract. The sample source text shows only signing on 1 March 2025 and an event date of 20 March 2025; it does not state conditions for effectiveness. In the check, input that source text together with the draft sentence, compare whether "has taken effect" has same-field evidence, and when only signing and an agreed date are present, record the claim as unsupported.
- Treating a commission rate as completed settlement. The commission setting sheet states fifteen percent and does not state settlement status. In the check, input the commission setting sheet source text together with the draft sentence, compare whether a settlement field exists, and when it is missing, record the evidence gap rather than concluding that settlement is complete.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorised execution. The retrieval output citation array indicates only that content was recalled; it does not indicate that an operation has been approved. In the check, input the retrieval result together with the handoff request, compare whether an authorisation record accompanies the request, and when only a retrieval hit is present, record the authorisation status as unknown.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text "Party A and Party B signed the creator special-event cooperation agreement on 1 March 2025, agreeing that the special event date is 20 March 2025" and compare it with the draft sentence "This creator special-event cooperation has taken effect". Observe whether the answer retains a statement that the effectiveness conditions are unknown. If it does, the condition is satisfied.
- Input the commission setting sheet source text "the commission rate for this event is fifteen percent" together with the draft sentence "commission is settled at fifteen percent". Compare whether a settlement status field exists, and observe whether the answer distinguishes a stated rate from completed settlement. If it does, the condition is satisfied.
- Input a paper citation array of [] together with the downstream answering step design. Compare whether the empty array still passes through the chain without error, and observe whether the downstream handles it as having no cited content. If it does, the condition is satisfied.
These verifications are paper expectations and were not actually executed. Cases where a field is not stated, or where only related-stage evidence exists, are recorded as unsupported or pending verification, not as negation or conflict.