What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream selection happens before a broadcast. The working question is whether a product may be sold and whether it suits on-camera demonstration. The materials that feed this step are supplier files, testing-agency reports, platform negative lists, and historical return rates. Day-to-day documents include sample evaluation forms, quality inspection reports, supplier qualification files, and prohibited-item lists. These materials update on a weekly and per-product rhythm, and one product can map to different report versions and list versions across language markets. Citation tracing addresses a narrow question: can each statement in an answer be returned to a specific source passage, and what version and status does that passage carry.
Three features of this category shape the task. First, the decision point sits before the broadcast, so the evidence base is pre-sale documentation rather than post-sale dispute records. Second, the same product can carry several language versions of the same report, so a citation must identify which version was used. Third, the materials include status fields such as pending inspection or submitted-not-yet-reviewed, and those statuses are distinct from any downstream business action.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
Retrieval begins by confirming which knowledge bases are associated and what material versions they hold. Only knowledge bases that share the same vector model may be associated together. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated jointly; the handling step is to check the identifier, exclude the non-matching base, and record what was observed, without running a cross-model retrieval to compare results. The search node outputs cited content as an array, and the array length may be zero, so an empty array does not mean the workflow has errored out. Semantic recall and relevance scores do not perform permission or entity isolation, and retrieval itself does not constitute authorization. Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability, and reranking requires an available model enabled by configuration; optional paths shown in the overall flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them.
Hypothetical drill sample
Source text for comparison (fictional):
"Sample evaluation form SE-0417, object is a portable juicer cup, evaluation stage is pending inspection, filing date is 17 April 2025. Supplier qualification file SUP-0417 shows status as submitted, platform review not yet completed. Prohibited-item list version QL-2025-04 does not include this category."
Draft sentence to be judged: "The juicer cup has completed inspection, the supplier qualification has passed review, and the broadcast can be scheduled."
The source states only that the evaluation stage is pending inspection and that the qualification status is submitted with review not yet completed. The draft sentence turns pending inspection into completed inspection and turns incomplete review into passed review. Subject, object, and field correspond, and the values are mutually exclusive, so this is a contradiction. Scheduling a broadcast is a business action that requires a separate system implementation; the source does not state authorization, so that point remains to be verified.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason for the choice and what it is compared against |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge base scope | Associate only knowledge bases sharing the same vector model | Compare against the vector model identifier of the selected base and exclude non-matching ones |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Compare recall behavior against semantic retrieval and full-text retrieval; part numbers and model numbers need exact hits |
| Citation upper limit | Counted in tokens; starting point set for this trial | Compare citation completeness at different starting points; this is not an official default |
| Minimum relevance | Starting point set for this trial | Compare against semantic retrieval and rerank scores to judge whether filtering is too strict |
| Result reranking | Enabled per configuration | Compare candidate ordering against the state without reranking |
| Citation display check | Compare each answer statement against the cited source text | Compare subject, object, status, and version against the source material |
Three common errors
- Writing pending inspection as completed inspection. The check takes the evaluation stage field from the source text and compares it with the status description in the draft sentence; when the two values are mutually exclusive, the result is a contradiction.
- Writing submitted qualification as passed review. The check takes the status field of SUP-0417 and compares it with the draft sentence; review not yet completed is a point to be verified and cannot be judged as passed.
- Inferring authorization from a retrieval hit or a relevance score. The check takes the retrieval output array and compares it with authorization material; when the retrieval result contains no authorization field, the authorization state remains unknown.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample, compare the evaluation stage field, and when the draft sentence contains "completed inspection" while the source states "pending inspection," judge the result as a contradiction.
- Input the status field of SUP-0417 and the draft sentence, compare the review status, and when the source states "platform review not yet completed" while the draft sentence states "passed review," judge the result as unsupported.
- Input the retrieval output array, compare its length against the downstream handling design, and when the array is empty, check whether downstream continues on an empty citation; when the output is non-empty, compare each cited source passage against the answer statement on subject, object, status, and version.