What the documents look like
Omnichannel transfer work moves goods between stores and warehouses. It does not cover marketing outreach. The working materials come from ERP inventory, store POS, e-commerce orders, and WMS. The daily document set includes transfer requests, inventory snapshots, store shortage lists, and transfer logistics notes. These materials update daily or weekly, so a handover has to check the version and the period each document covers. An older snapshot can describe a stock position that no longer matches the current one.
The operations handover question is narrower than stock accuracy. At handover, the open items are transfer requests, shortage claims, and delivery notes that sit at some stage of review. Some are submitted, some are pending review, some carry a recorded approval, and some have no recorded outcome. A retrieval result or a filled form shows what a document contains. It does not grant transfer authority, and it does not record an approval that the document itself does not state.
The citation tracing step is where these two things meet. A search node returns reference content, and a downstream answer or handover note may quote it. The trace has to connect each quoted line back to the material, the period, and the status the material actually carries. When the material states a status, the quoted line must match it. When the material is silent, the gap stays open.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can link one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model. It outputs reference content as an array, and that array can have length zero. A zero-length array still lets the output path run. The reference limit controls how many tokens of content a single search may cite. The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold that applies only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. It does not separate businesses, entities, or permissions. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF. Reranking requires a rerank model and has to be enabled in settings. Image retrieval requires image input and a model that supports the relevant capability.
These are retrieval mechanics. They describe how content is recalled and ordered. They do not describe who may act on a transfer, and they do not convert a retrieved request into an approved one.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads, "The 10 March 2025 inventory snapshot for East China warehouse, category A goods, shows 120 units available for transfer. The same-day store shortage list records Shanghai Store 3 short by 40 units. Transfer request DB-0310 was submitted by the store inventory keeper and its status is pending review." The draft sentence under review reads, "DB-0310 has been approved and the 40-unit transfer may proceed." The draft conflicts with the pending review status in the source. The approval it asserts is not supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Use on this page | Hypothetical starting point and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Bound the retrieval scope | Select libraries holding transfer documents; compare the vector model identifier across selected libraries |
| Reference limit | Cap cited tokens per search | Hypothetical start of 2000 tokens; compare against the total length of the sample material |
| Minimum relevance | Filter low-relevance results | Hypothetical start of 0.5; compare against each rerank score |
| Search mode | Choose the recall path | Use full-text or hybrid for identifier lookups; compare against which queries return the target document |
| Question optimization | Complete questions in continuous dialogue | Enable for short follow-up questions; compare results with the setting off |
| Reference content output | Carry the zero-length array | Paper input of an empty array; check whether the downstream step still runs |
The reference limit is measured in tokens, which is the documented unit. The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold and not a ranking rule, and it does not act as a permission or entity filter. RRF is the fusion step inside hybrid retrieval, not a switch that is turned on. Image retrieval and reranking are optional paths in the overall retrieval flow; each runs only when its input and model conditions are present.
Three common errors
- Treating a pending status as an approval. Input the draft sentence and the DB-0310 source text. Compare the status field. When the source says pending review, the draft sentence does not hold. The source does not state that the store inventory keeper lacks authority to submit; it states only that review is pending.
- Using a retrieval hit as authorization. Input the retrieved transfer request and compare its recorded status against the conditions needed to execute. When the material carries no approval record, the execution request is unsupported. A retrieved document is evidence of content, not evidence of permission.
- Linking libraries with different vector models. Input the library identifiers and compare the vector model field. When the identifiers differ, exclude that library and record the observation. Do not run a cross-model retrieval comparison to measure missed recall, because the documented condition is that only libraries with the same vector model may be linked.
How to verify the setup
- Input the DB-0310 source text above and the draft sentence. Compare the status field in each. The draft is judged unsupported when it asserts an approval that the source does not contain, and the pending review status remains the recorded state.
- Input a paper reference array of length zero. Compare whether the downstream answer step still executes. The path running through is the documented behavior for a zero-length reference output. This check does not claim that any particular query returns an empty array.
- Input the library identifiers and their vector model fields. Compare the identifiers for equality. When they differ, exclude the library from the linked set and record what was observed. Do not proceed to a cross-model retrieval comparison.
Each check states an input, a comparison, and an observable result. None of them has been run against a live system, and none of them establishes an approval, a transfer execution, or a completed handover. Where the material does not state a status, the item remains unverified, and that gap is recorded rather than filled.