What the documents look like
Brand dealer ordering events serve offline dealer reservations and do not directly manage platform storefronts. The working materials are the ordering handbook, the ordering contract, the sample list, and the credit approval record. Data arrives from the ordering event system, historical sales, dealer inventory, and financial credit lines, and it refreshes on a quarterly or annual cadence.
That cadence shapes citation tracing during a handover. A retrieved passage may belong to a previous ordering season, while the same dealer's order volume, credit line, and contract status change between seasons. The person receiving the handover has to check each citation against the specific period it covers. A citation carried over from last season does not support a statement about this season. Credit approval is one of the most time-consuming steps in the cycle, and the status field inside the approval record is what determines whether a given ordering request has an authorization basis at all.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node accepts one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model. It outputs a citation array whose length may be zero, and an empty array does not mean the workflow has errored or stopped. The minimum relevance setting applies only under semantic retrieval or result reranking; it is a filtering threshold and does not perform permission or entity isolation. Retrieval does not constitute authorization. Forms collect values, while business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each require their stated downstream implementation.
Hypothetical paper exercise: the source material reads, "At the 2025 spring ordering event, East China dealer A submitted ordering contract A-2025-031, status pending review; credit approval form S-2025-017 states an orderable amount of 800,000 CNY for this event, valid through 31 March 2025." The draft sentence under review reads, "Dealer A has received credit approval, contract A-2025-031 is effective, and shipment may proceed." The question is whether the draft sentence's claims of credit approval and contract effectiveness are supported by the material. The material shows only that the contract status is pending review and that the approval form states an amount and a validity period; it does not state an approval conclusion. Pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission, and it does not equal approval. Contract effectiveness and credit approval are two separate facts. The draft sentence is not supported by the material.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Select the ordering handbook base and the contract base that share one vector model | Shared vector model is required for joint linking; check each base identifier and exclude any base with a different vector model |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Contract numbers and approval form numbers are exact queries; semantic and full-text retrieval run together and are merged through RRF |
| Minimum relevance | 0.35 | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise; compare against 0.2 and 0.5 and observe whether the pending-review contract enters the candidate set |
| Citation cap | 3000 tokens | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise; compare against 1500 and 6000 and observe whether the credit validity field is trimmed away |
| Result reranking | Enabled | When candidates are numerous, rerank scores filter them; a rerank model must be available and enabled in the settings |
| Citation output handling | Citation array passed to the answering step | Check each answer statement against the cited source text; handle an empty array as a zero-length citation |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorization basis. Input is the hypothetical sample above; compare the retrieval output against the credit approval form text. If the answer states that credit approval was received while the source does not state an approval conclusion, the retrieval result has been treated as an approval fact.
- Writing pending review as effective. Input is the status field of contract A-2025-031; compare the draft sentence against the source. If the draft says the contract is effective while the source says pending review, the same field carries contradictory values.
- Linking knowledge bases with different vector models. Input is the vector model identifier of each of the two knowledge bases; compare whether the identifiers match. If they differ and the bases are still linked together, the linking condition is violated. Check the identifiers and exclude the mismatched base rather than running a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical source text above together with the draft sentence; compare the claims of credit approval and contract effectiveness in the draft against the status fields in the source. The draft sentence is supported only when the source explicitly states an approval conclusion and the contract status is effective. In the current source neither condition holds, so the judgment is not supported.
- Input the paper value
[]; compare whether the downstream node continues on a zero-length citation. If the downstream step still runs through without an error, the empty-result handling matches the documented behavior. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval will always return an empty array. - Input the vector model identifiers of the two knowledge bases; compare whether they match. Only matching identifiers permit joint linking. If they differ, record the actual observation and exclude the base; do not fabricate the runtime result of a joint link.
This page addresses one scope only: brand dealer ordering events, operations permission and handover management, and citation tracing. During an operations handover, the authorization state of each material, action, and request must be established from the source documents; retrieval and forms are not authorization execution.