What the documents look like
Reverse returns-to-warehouse inspection handles parcels that have already been sold and then sent back. Warehouse work centres on scanning returned items, judging product condition, and deciding resale or disposal. New-order outbound picking is outside this scope. Materials update per item and per day. Everyday records include the returns inbound note, inspection photographs, the grade determination table, and the resale listing sheet. The returns inbound note and the resale listing sheet directly affect whether an item can re-enter sellable inventory; the inspection photographs and grade determination table record the basis for that judgment. In cross-border work, one batch of returned items may arrive with platform after-sales pages and carrier return documents in different languages, so materials need cross-language retrieval and citation checking.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model, and it outputs citations as an array whose length may be 0. When nothing is found, the output path still runs. Citation content is then handed to a later answering step, where each statement is checked against the cited source text. For timeliness, the returns inbound note and the grade determination table have version changes, so a source check should confirm the cited content belongs to the currently effective version.
Hypothetical drill sample: a returns inbound note records "Return number RT-2024-0871, item is a portable juicer cup, arrival date 12 June 2024, appearance inspection shows scratches on the cup body, function test shows the motor runs normally, inspection conclusion is Grade B resalable." The inspection photographs for the same batch are named RT-2024-0871-01 through 03, and the grade determination table records this item as Grade B. A draft sentence reads "RT-2024-0871 juicer cup passed inspection as Grade B and can be scheduled for resale listing." The item to check is whether the grade and resale conclusion in this draft sentence can be found in the returns inbound note and grade determination table with the same subject, the same period, and the same field.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Setting relevant to this page | How to verify it |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model | Check whether the selected knowledge bases share the same vector model identifier; do not associate across models |
| Search parameters | Semantic search, full-text search, hybrid search, result rerank | Choose by material type; identifier-type information can use full-text or hybrid search |
| Citation limit | Maximum tokens cited per search | For this hypothetical trial, set a starting value that covers the length of a single returned item's materials, then compare it with the actual length of the inspection photographs and determination table |
| Minimum relevance | A 0-to-1 filter threshold, effective only in semantic search or with result rerank | Use it to filter low-relevance results; it does not act as a permission or entity isolation mechanism |
| Citation output | Array format, length may be 0 | When the array is empty, check whether the downstream answering step handles it as no citation |
| Timeliness check | The returns inbound note and grade determination table have version changes | Search with the current version and a historical version separately, and confirm the cited content belongs to the effective version |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieved citation as an already authorised basis for resale. Retrieval output only means relevant material was found; resale listing requires confirmation from the inspection conclusion and the inventory management step, and the citation itself is not an authorisation.
- Using the minimum relevance setting to exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorised records. Minimum relevance is a filter threshold effective only in semantic search or with result rerank, and it does not perform permission or entity isolation.
- Treating an empty citation array as a workflow error. The documented output length may be 0, and the output path still runs when the array is empty, so the downstream design needs to be checked for how it handles no citation.
How to verify the setup
- Input the returns inbound note text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample, then compare whether the grade conclusion in the draft sentence matches the source text "inspection conclusion is Grade B" with the same subject, the same period, and the same field. If they agree, the citation source can be matched; if the source text does not state a grade or has only related-stage evidence, record it as pending verification.
- Input the inspection photograph file names and the grade determination table record from the hypothetical sample, then compare whether the photograph numbers correspond to the return number and whether the determination table grade matches the inbound note conclusion. If both the numbers and the grade correspond, the material chain is complete; if photographs are missing or the determination table does not record this item, record the evidence gap.
- Use a clearly labelled paper input of an empty array to check the downstream design, and compare whether the downstream answering step can still receive and handle the case with no citation. If the downstream handles it as no citation and indicates that no material was found, the receiving design is usable; if the downstream errors or stops, the receiving logic needs adjustment. All of the above is paper checking and does not indicate that anything has actually been run.