What the documents look like
Complaints and official replies are directed at a platform or a regulatory body, so the file set carries formal evidential weight and formal corrective wording. The working material includes complaint tickets, regulatory inquiry letters, order evidence, and rectification reports. Sources named in the brief are the 12315 platform, platform complaint centres, customer service chat, and order systems. For cross-border matters the same file set can contain material in more than one language, and a retrieved passage has to be traceable back to its source text before anyone relies on it. Updates are irregular and case by case, so the effective version of a document is checked against the version held for that individual matter.
Three facts shape this page. First, the audience is external: a platform or a regulator reads the reply, so wording about status and completion is a factual claim about the case record. Second, the evidence chain matters as much as the answer, because each sentence in a reply should be traceable to a source document. Third, multilingual retrieval can surface relevant passages across languages, but relevance is a similarity measure and says nothing about whether a record may be used.
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 citations as an array whose length can be zero. A zero-length array still lets the output path run; it is not by itself a workflow error. Citation content is passed on to the answering step, where each sentence is checked against the cited source text. Semantic retrieval supports cross-language understanding, but a similarity score is a relevance measure and does not act as a permission filter or an entity isolation rule. Retrieval is not authorization, and a retrieved document is not thereby approved, submitted, or effective.
Hypothetical paper exercise. A shop receives a regulatory inquiry letter. The source text reads: "This authority requires an explanation of the refund handling for order A-2024-0315. Submit a written reply within ten working days of receiving this letter." The case file also holds a complaint ticket whose status field reads "pending." A customer service supervisor drafts the handover sentence: "The inquiry letter has been fully answered and submitted to the regulatory authority." The comparison material is the inquiry letter text and the complaint ticket status field. The drafted sentence disagrees with the recorded status; the reply is not complete.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Value or comparison method on this page | Basis and boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select the complaint and regulatory material bases that share one vector model | Bases with different vector models cannot be associated together |
| Search mode | Semantic retrieval for multilingual phrasing, hybrid retrieval for identifier-type queries | Hybrid retrieval is merged through RRF; reranking needs a model and is enabled by setting |
| Citation ceiling | Hypothetical trial starting value set for this check, compared with the citation length of the sample | The citation ceiling controls tokens of cited content, not a thinking budget |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical trial starting value on a 0 to 1 scale, compared with the rerank score | Takes effect only in semantic retrieval or with result reranking |
| Citation output handover | Pass the citation array to the answering step and compare each sentence with the source text | A zero-length array does not mean the workflow has terminated with an error |
| Document version check | Test sources with the current version and an earlier version of the material | Whether a citation is adopted still depends on review against the effective version |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval score as a permission filter. The erroneous input is the statement "a relevance of 0.8 means the record may be viewed." The comparison object is the citation array against the source material. The observable result is that a high-scoring passage is cited even though the material has not been authorized for this use. The check is to compare each cited source against access permission; a score does not replace an authorization decision.
- Treating a pending ticket as an answered one. The erroneous input is the drafted sentence "the inquiry letter has been fully answered." The comparison object is the ticket status field against the wording of the drafted sentence. The observable result is a status of pending while the drafted sentence states completion. The check is to compare the same subject, the same period, and the same field; a field that is not recorded, or only stage evidence, is recorded as unsupported or pending verification.
- Treating an empty citation array as an error. The erroneous input is the paper input
[]. The comparison object is the downstream answering step's design. The observable result is that the downstream step has no branch for an empty array. The check is to use an explicit empty array to examine the downstream handover design, without claiming that retrieval must return an empty array.
How to verify the setup
- Compare the hypothetical inquiry letter text with the drafted sentence. Input: the inquiry letter text, the ticket status field, and the drafted sentence. Comparison: the drafted sentence against the status field in the source material. The condition is met when the drafted sentence agrees with the material status or is marked as pending verification; where it disagrees, record the evidence gap.
- Compare the citation array with the answer sentence by sentence. Input: the citation array produced by retrieval and the answer text. Comparison: each answer sentence against the cited source text. The condition is met when every sentence can be traced to cited source text, and sentences that cannot be traced are marked as unsupported.
- Check the association scope using vector model identifiers. Input: the vector model identifier of each knowledge base to be associated. Comparison: whether the identifiers are the same across the bases. The condition is met when only bases sharing the same vector model are associated, and any base that does not match is excluded with the observation recorded; no cross-model retrieval is run to compare missed recalls.
This page addresses only complaints and official replies, cross-border material and multilingual retrieval, and citation tracing. A retrieval result or a form value does not place any material, action, or request into an authorized state; the authorization status of a handover item has to be established from the case record itself.