What the documents look like
Returned-goods inspection at the receiving warehouse handles reverse parcels and product-grade decisions. It does not handle outbound picking for new orders. The working documents are the return inbound note, inspection photographs, the grade determination sheet, and the resale listing sheet. Data arrives from the WMS returns module, platform after-sales records, carrier returns, and the inspection bench, and it updates per item and per day.
For operating reports and exception reviews, the question this page addresses is narrow: when a return inbound record, an inspection photograph, or a grade determination is cited later, can the citation be traced back to its original source and version. Once these documents enter a report or a review pack, citation tracing decides whether a conclusion can be checked against the underlying material.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and it outputs cited content as an array whose length may be zero. A zero-length array means the output path still runs; it does not mean the workflow raised an error. Whether the cited content is carried into the answering step, and whether the final display maps each answer statement back to source text, needs separate checking.
The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold. It applies only under semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. It is not a permission filter and not an entity isolation filter; a relevance score does not separate unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Retrieval is not authorization.
The same-vector-model requirement applies to knowledge base association. It does not extend to external systems such as after-sales platforms or carrier systems, and it does not mean those systems must share a model. Mixed retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF. Reranking runs when a rerank model is available and the setting is enabled. Image retrieval requires image input and matching model capability. These paths are listed as optional in the overall retrieval flow; they do not execute on every request.
Hypothetical paper case for this page: on 10 March 2026, an after-sales warehouse processes one return. The return inbound note states: "Return ID RT-0310-07, item is a vacuum flask, outer packaging damaged, inner liner shows no sign of use." The inspection photograph is labelled "taken at inspection bench, 10 March." The grade determination sheet records: "Graded B, eligible for resale." A draft exception-review sentence reads: "This return was scrapped because of use marks on the inner liner." A pending handover request reads: "Please confirm from the above materials whether this return has been scrapped and synchronize inventory."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select only knowledge bases sharing the same vector model as the return inbound note and grade determination sheet | Cross-model bases cannot be associated together; verify the identifier first and exclude non-matching bases |
| Search mode | Semantic retrieval plus full-text retrieval | Return IDs are exact queries and grade descriptions are semantic queries; the two result paths merge through RRF |
| Minimum relevance | Starting point set at 0.3 | This is a hypothetical starting value; compare against recall counts with no threshold set, and observe whether low-relevance fragments are filtered |
| Citation limit | Starting point set at 1500 tokens | This is a hypothetical starting value; compare against the token length of the full grade determination sheet and observe whether truncation occurs |
| Citation handoff | Search output passed to the answering step and checked line by line | The output array length may be zero; an empty array is not a workflow error |
| Document version check | Retrieve with the current and the historical grade determination sheet separately | Observe which version the citation points to; adoption still depends on review against the effective version |
Three common errors
- Reading "Graded B, eligible for resale" in the hypothetical case as "already scrapped." The grade determination sheet states resale eligibility, while the draft sentence states scrapping. Same subject, same field, mutually exclusive values: this is a contradiction. If the sheet instead reads "pending inspection review," the draft sentence is unsupported, and unsupported is not the same as contradicted.
- Treating the pending handover request as executed. The request asks to confirm whether scrapping occurred and to synchronize inventory. This is a pending-review state. It does not show that operating authority is missing, and it does not show that inventory was synchronized. Signing, agreement reached, and contract effective are three separate facts.
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorization basis. A relevance score is not an entity or permission filter. Retrieving a record means the content was recalled. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source materials from the hypothetical case and the draft sentence. Compare "Graded B, eligible for resale" against "was scrapped" for the same subject and the same field. Observable result: both refer to the same return and the same grade field with opposite values, so the pair is a contradiction. If the grade determination sheet reads "pending review," the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Input the pending handover request. Compare its wording, "confirm whether scrapped and synchronize inventory," against any signed scrapping record or signed synchronization record. Observable result: when only the request text exists, both scrapping and inventory synchronization remain unverified and cannot be recorded as completed.
- Input a citation array explicitly written as empty,
[]. Compare how the downstream design handles an empty array. Observable result: the output path runs and the downstream produces a no-citation notice, which satisfies the condition. If the downstream treats the empty array as an error and stops, the condition is not satisfied.
These checks describe what to compare and what would count as satisfying the condition. They are paper checks, not executed tests, and no deployment, approval, refund, or synchronization is claimed.