What the documents look like
Platform refund and return work happens order by order, and it does not depend on a promise made in a single livestream session. The materials that carry the case are the refund request, the return waybill, the quality inspection photos, and the refund approval record. These materials sit in different systems: the platform after-sales backend, customer service chat, WMS receiving, and payment refund records. Updates arrive per order and daily.
In cross-border handling, one order can hold a Chinese-language request, an English-language waybill, and chat records in several languages at the same time. Before any citation is reused, the material must be tied to the same order and the same refund stage. A waybill number that matches while the stage field differs still leaves the case unresolved.
The category difference matters for tracing. Because ordinary platform refunds occur continuously per order, the evidence base is a stream of separate cases rather than one event with one transcript. Each citation must be checked against its own order record.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model. Its output is an array of citations, and the array length may be zero. A zero-length output still lets the downstream link run; it does not mean the workflow reported an error and stopped.
Semantic retrieval works through vector distance and can match across languages. Full-text retrieval suits numbers, model codes, and proper nouns. Hybrid retrieval merges the two paths through RRF. Rerank produces a 0-1 score that can be used for filtering. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic retrieval or result reranking, and it acts as a filter threshold. The citation limit is measured in tokens and does not use top k.
Retrieved content must be checked line by line against the source text. A model's thinking process and the fluency of an answer do not replace source evidence. Retrieval is not authorization: a citation array does not approve a refund, does not write to a database, and does not trigger payment.
Hypothetical paper exercise. A platform after-sales knowledge base holds one refund approval record. The source text reads: "Order A-2041, refund request submitted 12 March 2025, return waybill SF-7788 shows warehouse receipt on 15 March, inspection photo notes outer packaging damage, approval status pending review." A draft sentence reads: "The refund for order A-2041 has been approved and paid." Checking compares the approval status field with the draft sentence. The source states pending review only. The draft sentence's claim of approval and payment has no supporting evidence in this record.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select only the base containing the refund approval record | Check the vector model identifier first, compare it against each candidate base, and exclude any that do not match |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | The sample contains both an order number and natural-language description; compare against semantic-only and full-text-only results |
| Citation limit | Set to 3000 tokens | Hypothetical starting point; compare against 2000 and 4000 for citation completeness and truncation |
| Minimum relevance | Set to 0.4 | Hypothetical starting point; compare against 0.3 and 0.5 for returned items and their correspondence to source text |
| Result reranking | Enabled | With many candidates, rerank for a second ordering; compare the position of the same source text before and after reranking |
| Question optimization | Enabled for multi-turn follow-ups | Compare against the disabled state, and observe whether coreference completion reaches the same approval record |
The table lists implementation checks tied to this page's documents. It does not describe database internals or claim any setting is an official default. RRF is a fusion step in hybrid retrieval, not a switch to enable. Thinking budget is a reasoning budget and must not be reused as a citation token limit.
Three common errors
- Reading a pending review status as approved. Input: the approval record source text and the draft sentence. Compare the value of the approval status field. Pending review and approved are mutually exclusive values of the same field; only their simultaneous appearance in one field would be a contradiction. The draft sentence is unsupported.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorized execution. Input: the search node's citation array. Compare the citation content against the refund approval record. Retrieval output carries no approval or payment action.
- Treating an empty citation array as workflow failure. Input: a clearly written paper output of
[]. Compare the downstream node design. The output link still runs, and this does not indicate an error termination.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source text and the draft sentence. Compare the approval status field with the status stated in the draft sentence. When the draft sentence says "has been approved" while the source says "pending review," the sentence is judged unsupported.
- Input the Chinese-language request and the English-language waybill for the same order. Compare the order number and the refund stage field. When the number matches and the stage field matches, the materials are confirmed as belonging to the same order.
- Input the paper output
[]. Compare whether the downstream node continues to execute. When the output link runs without an error, the empty-citation handoff matches the documented behavior.
These checks state expected observations. They do not claim that a test was run, that a deployment occurred, or that any approval, refund, or synchronization action took place. Where the source text does not state a field value, the evidence gap remains open.