What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream selling happens before a broadcast, and its purpose is to decide whether a product can be sold and whether it can be shown on camera. The working materials are sample evaluation forms, quality inspection reports, supplier qualification files, and prohibited-item lists. They arrive from suppliers, testing bodies, platform negative catalogs, and historical return records. Language, numbering systems, and field definitions differ across these sources, and the same qualification document may spell a company name differently in different language versions.
Retrieval in this step operates on those materials and on multilingual questions asked about them. The brief gives weekly, per-product updates for this data. This page does not introduce batch synchronization or real-time triggers.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together. Verification begins by confirming the vector model identifier, excluding bases that do not match, and recording what was observed; a cross-model retrieval is not run to compare missed recalls.
Retrieval returns materials. It does not decide authorization. Semantic retrieval, the minimum relevance value, and similarity scores are not permission or entity isolation mechanisms, and a returned hit does not show that unauthorized supplier records were excluded. When nothing is found, the cited content is output as an array whose length can be 0, and that output path still completes.
Search modes need separate tests by question type. Numbers, models, and proper nouns suit full-text or hybrid retrieval. Natural-language questions suit semantic or hybrid retrieval. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF; RRF is a fusion process and is not described as a switch. Result reranking requires a rerank model enabled in the settings, and rerank scores fall in the 0-1 range and can be used for filtering. Question optimization performs coreference resolution and question expansion and adds one model call.
Hypothetical paper exercise
Source text supplied for checking (fictional, used only for this page):
- The sample evaluation form submitted by supplier A states: the submitting entity is "Xinglan Daily Products Factory", the sample is a stainless steel vacuum flask, specification 500 milliliters, submission date March 10, 2025.
- The quality inspection report for the same batch states: the commissioning party is "Xinglan Daily Necessities Manufacturing Co., Ltd.", sample name stainless steel vacuum flask, report number QC-2503-118, issue date March 18, 2025.
- The current version of the platform prohibited-item list does not include the stainless steel vacuum flask, and the list version date is March 1, 2025.
Draft sentence to be judged: "The stainless steel vacuum flask submitted by Xinglan Daily Products Factory has passed quality inspection and can be scheduled for broadcast."
This draft sentence raises whether the entity name and the commissioning party name in the report refer to the same subject, and whether the report states a pass conclusion. The two documents spell the entity name differently, and whether the report states a pass conclusion is not provided in this sample and remains unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Associate one quality inspection base | Confirm its vector model identifier first, compare with other candidate bases, and exclude those with a different vector model |
| Search mode | Test hybrid retrieval first | Compare against semantic-only and full-text-only results, observing hits on numbered questions |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point 3000 tokens | Test with sample evaluation forms and inspection reports of different lengths to see whether content is truncated, then compare completeness against a smaller value |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point 0.4 | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then compare whether irrelevant passages still enter the citations at this value |
| Question optimization | Enabled for multi-turn follow-up scenarios | Compare the original question with the optimized question and check whether entity names were rewritten |
| Result reranking | Enabled when candidates are numerous | Compare ordering before and after reranking and observe the 0-1 score and filtering effect |
These values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise and are not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorization conclusion. The input is the draft sentence above, and the error is concluding that broadcast is permitted because retrieval returned the sample evaluation form. Retrieval only returns materials; broadcast authorization requires separate verification and approval.
- Treating different entity names as the same subject directly. The input is the two source documents, and the comparison is between the submitting entity field and the commissioning party field. The two spellings differ and the materials provide no unifying identifier such as a unified social credit code, so the association remains to be verified.
- Reading an unstated conclusion as a pass. The input is the inspection report text, and the comparison is whether the report states a pass conclusion. This sample does not provide that field, so "has passed quality inspection" in the draft sentence is unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three source documents and the draft sentence, compare whether the retrieved content includes the sample evaluation form and the inspection report text, and observe whether the returned citations are given as an array whose length can be 0. The expected result is that returned content matches the source text. If an empty array is returned, record that observation and check how the downstream design handles the empty result.
- Input the draft sentence, compare the values of the submitting entity field and the commissioning party field in the retrieval results, and observe whether any statement merges them into one subject. The expected result is that the two are presented separately with the association marked as pending verification. A merged statement fails this condition.
- Input the inspection report text, compare whether the report states a pass conclusion, and observe whether "has passed quality inspection" in the draft sentence has corresponding source support. The expected result is that this conclusion is marked unsupported. If the materials are later supplemented with a conclusion field, compare again against the supplemented text.
All of the above are paper checks. No retrieval or business action was actually executed.