What the documents look like
Ratings maintenance material follows consumer feedback after after-sales fulfillment. The main sources are Douyin Shop experience score, Tmall service indicators, JD after-sales reviews, and the customer service system. The documents handled day to day are negative review handling records, experience score detail sheets, service diagnosis reports, and rectification ledgers. These materials update daily or weekly. In cross-border work, the same batch of records often contains fields in Chinese alongside fields in the target market language, so retrieval has to match both local-language questions and the original wording.
Document shape directly affects recall. Negative review handling records carry handling time and responsible role. Experience score detail sheets carry indicator names and statistical intervals. Service diagnosis reports carry problem attribution and recommendations. Rectification ledgers carry rectification items and tracking status. Multilingual retrieval depends on the vector model supporting cross-language semantics. The official documents state that semantic retrieval offers cross-multilingual understanding, for example a Chinese question matching an English knowledge point.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Bases using different vector models cannot be associated together. At operation time, check the vector model identifier first, exclude those that do not match, and record what is observed. Do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.
The retrieval step does not perform authorization. Semantic recall and minimum relevance are similarity filters. They do not carry entity isolation or permission decisions. Retrieving a piece of material does not mean the current role is entitled to view or act on that record. Forms collect values. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
The citation limit is measured in tokens and controls the maximum amount of content cited per search. Minimum relevance is a 0-1 filter threshold and takes effect only under semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF. RRF is a fusion process, not a switch. Reranking requires an available model and must be enabled in settings. Image retrieval requires corresponding image input and model capability. Optional paths do not mean every request executes all of them. Question optimization performs coreference resolution and question expansion and adds one model call.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below centers on the hypothetical drill sample in this page. It lists only officially documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and the primary task. The values are starting points for this hypothetical trial, used for comparison against control values, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Associate only the bases holding negative review handling records and rectification ledgers | Check each base's vector model identifier first; associate only matching identifiers, exclude non-matching ones and record them |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Compare against semantic retrieval and full-text retrieval on the same test question, and observe which path hits the target record |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point 3000 tokens | Use negative review records of different lengths to test content completeness, and compare truncation against control values of 1500 and 5000 |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point 0.4 | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then compare retained results against 0.3 and 0.5 |
| Question optimization | Enabled for multi-turn follow-ups | Compare the original question with the optimized question and check whether the subject was altered incorrectly |
| Result reranking | Enabled per settings | Compare candidate ordering before and after enabling, and confirm the rerank score is used for filtering |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval results as an authorization basis. Input is a role retrieving one negative review handling record. Compare the retrieval hit against the authorization list. The observable result is that the hit record appears in the citations, while whether that role holds handling permission cannot be determined from the retrieval output. The check action is to consult the authorization list separately and record the gap when it is missing.
- Treating minimum relevance as an entity or permission filter. Input is a search executed after setting minimum relevance. Compare the returned entries before and after filtering. The observable result is that low-scoring entries are removed, while whether unrelated businesses or unauthorized records are excluded cannot be determined by that threshold. The check action is to verify entity scope and permissions separately.
- Writing RRF as a switch or treating optional paths as mandatory. Input is a hybrid retrieval configuration. Compare the configuration items against the parameters listed in the documents. The observable result is that the documents provide no RRF switch, and image retrieval and reranking each have their own trigger conditions. The check action is to confirm image input, model capability, and enabled settings item by item.
How to verify the setup
Hypothetical drill sample. Material text for checking: the negative review handling record states "Order A generated a negative review on March 5, responsible role is after-sales customer service, handling status is contacted and awaiting supplementary evidence." The rectification ledger states "Rectification item B is linked to Order A, tracking status is in progress." Draft sentence to be judged: "Order A's negative review has been fully handled, and rectification item B has been closed."
- Verification one, subject and status check. Input is the two source texts above and the draft sentence. Compare "handling status is contacted and awaiting supplementary evidence" against "has been fully handled." The observable result is that the status values do not match, and the draft sentence is not supported by the source. The condition for satisfaction is that the draft sentence is revised to match the source, or marked as pending verification.
- Verification two, scope and field check. Input is the rectification ledger text and the draft sentence. Compare "tracking status is in progress" against "has been closed." The observable result is that the same field holds mutually exclusive values, and the draft sentence contradicts the source. The condition for satisfaction is that the source value is retained and the evidence gap is recorded.
- Verification three, empty-result handling check. Input is a paper input of an empty citation array []. Compare how the downstream design handles a citation path of length 0. The observable result is that the output path runs through, and whether empty content is returned depends on the downstream design. The condition for satisfaction is that the downstream design explicitly handles the empty result, without claiming that some invented rule makes retrieval always return [].
All of the above are paper checks. No actual retrieval, deployment, approval, or rectification closure action was executed.