What the documents look like
Commission settlement and deduction for creators happens after a sale closes, so the reconciliation focus sits on valid promoted orders and post-sale commission deductions. The working material comes from the selected alliance backend, order after-sales data, finance system data, and creator contracts. Day-to-day documents include commission setting records, settlement statements, refund deduction details, and invoices. Settlement runs weekly or monthly. In cross-border work, one batch of material often carries both Chinese and English wording, and retrieval has to reach the same settlement object across languages.
These traits shape the retrieval step. Field wording in settlement statements and refund deduction details may differ between language versions, so semantic retrieval carries cross-language matching while full-text retrieval carries exact identifiers such as settlement numbers and invoice numbers. Whether the material has finished training determines whether retrieval can recall the corresponding content.
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Knowledge bases with different vector models cannot be associated together. The handling method is to check the vector model identifier, exclude those that do not match, and record the actual observation. Cross-model retrieval is not executed to compare recall differences.
Search mode is compared across semantic retrieval, full-text retrieval, and hybrid retrieval for the test question. No single mode is presumed suitable for all material. The citation limit uses tokens as its unit, and actual material of different lengths determines whether content stays complete. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. It is a filter threshold and does not perform permission or entity isolation. Question optimization handles coreference resolution and question expansion, and the original question and the optimized question need to be compared to check whether the subject was altered.
Citation content is output as an array, and its length can be 0. Even when no content is retrieved, this output path still runs. Empty-result handling can be checked against a downstream design using the explicit paper input []. Retrieval and recall belong to the material lookup step. When operations hand over material, which authorization state the material, operation, or request sits in must be judged from what the material itself records. A retrieval result does not constitute authorized execution.
Constraints at the retrieval step
A hypothetical paper test case: the source text of settlement material for a cross-border creator cooperation project reads — "This settlement statement corresponds to creator A's valid promoted orders in March 2025, and the deduction scope is refund orders completed in the same period; the commission amount on this statement is based on the record exported from the selected alliance backend." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "Creator A's April 2025 refund orders were deducted in the March 2025 settlement statement." The draft sentence and the source text take different values in the period field, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
The same subject, the same period, and the same field must be used for a judgment. Only an explicit mutually exclusive value in the same field counts as a contradiction. A field that is not stated, or evidence that only reaches a related stage, counts as unsupported or pending verification. A pending review does not demonstrate the absence of operating permission. Signing, cooperation reaching agreement, and contract taking effect are three distinct facts. A quotation validity period does not indicate a supply period. Authorization or effectiveness clauses must not be fabricated to obtain a definite answer, and the evidence gap stays open.
The material needed for the check must sit inside a target retrieval scope that access rights cover, or inside an explicit manual input. When it is missing, the gap is recorded. The overall document flow lists optional paths, and these do not mean every request executes all of them. Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability. Reranking requires a model and must be enabled by configuration. RRF is a fusion process for hybrid results and is not written as a toggle switch.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Value or check item relevant to this page | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Check whether the vector model identifiers of the knowledge bases to be associated match | Bases with non-matching identifiers are excluded and not associated together |
| Search mode | Compare semantic, full-text, and hybrid retrieval separately for the test question | No single mode is presumed suitable for all material |
| Citation limit | For this hypothetical trial, set the starting value to the token amount needed to cover one complete settlement statement | Compare against actual material of different lengths before adjusting |
| Minimum relevance | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then compare threshold values | Takes effect only under semantic retrieval or result reranking |
| Question optimization | Compare whether the subject stays the same between the original and optimized question | Used for coreference resolution and question expansion |
| Result reranking | Compare rerank scores when a rerank model exists and is enabled by configuration | No rerank score is produced when it is not enabled |
Three common errors
- Treating minimum relevance as permission or entity filtering. The input is a relevance threshold setting, the comparison object is the filtering relation between that threshold and retrieval result scores, and the observable result is that low-scoring content is filtered out. When misused as permission filtering, unrelated businesses or unauthorized records may still appear in the citation content.
- Rewriting the period recorded on a settlement statement into another period. Using the hypothetical sample, the input is the source text "March 2025" and the draft sentence "April 2025," the comparison covers the values of the same period field, and the observable result is that the two values differ and the draft sentence is unsupported.
- Treating a handover request pending review as already approved and executed. The input is a request marked pending review, the comparison object is the recorded request state, and the observable result is that no approval record appears in the material, so the request does not constitute an executed action.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source text and the draft sentence, compare the values of the same period field, and observe that the source text reads March 2025 while the draft sentence reads April 2025, so the draft sentence is judged unsupported. If the two values match, this comparison does not hold.
- Input a handover request marked pending review, compare whether an approval record exists in the material, and observe that no approval record is found, so the request is judged to be in pending review status. If an approval record appears, the recording subject and scope must be checked separately.
- Input the paper empty result [], compare how the downstream design receives an empty array, and observe that the output path runs. This check does not indicate that retrieval for a fictional rule necessarily returns []; the actual returned content is subject to observation.