What the documents look like
Short-video affiliate sales depends on long-lived content exposure and product-link conversion. Real-time explanation is not the primary mechanism. Daily materials cluster into four types: short-video scripts, product lists for attached carts, commission plans, and violation feedback. Updates arrive daily or weekly. In cross-border work, one script can exist in several language versions, while product lists and commission plans are frequently stored in Chinese and retrieved through English or target-market language queries. A mismatch between query language and stored language is normal rather than exceptional.
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Semantic retrieval supports cross-language understanding, so a Chinese question can match an English knowledge point at the retrieval step. The association scope remains bounded by the same-vector-model condition. Retrieval output supplies reference content only; it does not change the authorization state of any material.
Constraints at the retrieval step
Retrieval is not authorization. During an operations handover, a commission plan may be pending review, a violation feedback item may be awaiting reply, and a termination notice may be unsigned. Those states are decided on the business side. Retrieval can present text and cannot treat recalled content as evidence that approval passed or execution completed.
The knowledge base search node outputs references as an array, and the length can be 0. When nothing is found, the output path still runs, so downstream design must accept an empty array. Semantic retrieval and the minimum relevance value filter by similarity only. They do not perform entity isolation or permission filtering. A similarity setting cannot exclude unrelated business lines or unauthorized records. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, which is a fusion process rather than a separate switch. Image retrieval requires image input and matching model capability. Re-ranking requires a model and must be enabled by configuration. The optional paths listed in the overall flow do not all execute on every request.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below uses one hypothetical drill sample for this page and lists only documented settings or implementation checks. Numeric values are starting points for this hypothetical trial, used to compare against another value, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point and reason | Check method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Associate only bases with identical vector model identifiers; verify the identifier first and exclude non-matching bases | Check each vector model identifier; do not perform cross-model joint association |
| Search mode | Try semantic, full-text, and hybrid retrieval separately on the test question | Compare the three recall paths on the same question; do not assume one mode suits all materials |
| Reference limit | Measured in tokens; test content completeness with materials of different lengths | Observe whether reference content is truncated, then adjust the limit |
| Minimum relevance | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then set a starting threshold | Compare filtered content before and after threshold changes; effective only under semantic retrieval or re-ranking |
| Question optimization | Compare the original question with the optimized question and check whether the subject was altered | Inspect the completion result in conversation details and confirm the referent is correct |
| Result re-ranking | Observe secondary ordering when a re-ranking model is present and enabled | Compare candidate order before and after enabling; re-ranking scores range from 0 to 1 |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieved recall as completed authorization. Hypothetical drill sample: a commission plan text reads "This plan takes effect on 1 March 2026, and applies to creators who have signed a cooperation agreement." After retrieval matches this sentence, a draft sentence states "This creator has signed the cooperation agreement." The input is the retrieved commission plan text; the comparison is between the condition "has signed a cooperation agreement" and the creator's actual signing status; the observable result is that the original text only sets an applicability condition and records no specific creator as having signed. The draft is judged unsupported.
- Treating a similarity setting as entity isolation. Hypothetical drill sample: the retrieval question is "Southeast Asia market commission rate," and the base contains commission plans for several markets. The input is the retrieval question and the minimum relevance setting; the comparison is between the market attribution of recalled records and the question intent; the observable result is that similarity filters by semantic distance only, and unauthorized records can still be recalled. Retrieval does not carry permission filtering.
- Treating a pending-review state as missing operation permission. Hypothetical drill sample: a violation feedback text reads "The video title issue has been submitted for review; the outcome will be notified." The input is that feedback text; the comparison is between "submitted for review" and "review passed" or "no operation permission"; the observable result is that the original text records only the submission action and states no review conclusion. The item is judged pending verification and is not written as a negation or conflict.
How to verify the setup
The three checks below use the hypothetical source texts, draft sentence, and request above. Each states the input, the comparison, and the condition that satisfies the check. All are paper expectations and were not executed.
- Verify the commission plan draft sentence. Input: the commission plan text "This plan takes effect on 1 March 2026, and applies to creators who have signed a cooperation agreement" together with the draft sentence "This creator has signed the cooperation agreement." Compare whether both refer to the same subject, the same period, and the same field. Satisfied condition: the signing fact asserted in the draft has no corresponding record in the source text, so the draft is judged unsupported and the evidence gap is retained.
- Verify empty-reference handling. Input: an explicit paper input of an empty array []. Compare whether the downstream node is designed to accept a reference content length of 0. Satisfied condition: the downstream path still runs on receiving the empty array. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty array.
- Verify cross-model association checking. Input: the vector model identifiers of two knowledge bases. Compare whether the identifiers are identical. Satisfied condition: joint association is permitted only when identifiers match; when they differ, exclude that base and record the actual observation. Do not fabricate run results after cross-model joint association.