What the documents look like
Brand dealer ordering events serve offline dealer reservations and do not directly manage platform storefronts. The working materials for this category come from the ordering event system, historical sales, dealer inventory and financial credit records. The documents handled day to day are the ordering handbook, the ordering contract, the sample list and the credit approval record. These materials update by quarter or by year, so a handover review has to establish which version of a document and which request are in force at the point of transfer.
For operations permission and handover management, the retrieval step has a narrow job: let the incoming operator locate the relevant document and its stated status. A retrieval hit is a reference result. It does not approve credit, does not sign a contract and does not confirm payment collection.
A hypothetical drill sample is used below for illustration only. It is a paper exercise, not a real record and not a completed test.
Source material one, a credit approval record, reads: "2025 Spring ordering event credit approval form, dealer A, requested limit 800,000 yuan, status is pending review, approver: regional director, date: 2025-03-10."
Source material two, a sample list, reads: "Sample number S-2025-018, quantity 2 pieces, dispatched, receipt status: not signed."
A draft sentence under review reads: "Dealer A's 800,000 yuan credit has been approved and ordering may proceed." Compared with the source status field "pending review," this draft is unsupported. The same subject, the same period and the same field do not match, and the draft asserts a completed approval that the source does not state.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together. The correct handling is to check the model identifier first and exclude any knowledge base that does not match, then record what was actually observed. No claim is made here about what a mismatched association would return at runtime.
Reference content is output as an array and its length can be zero, so the downstream chain still runs when nothing is retrieved. A zero-length result is a reference outcome, not proof that a document does not exist and not proof that a request was denied.
The minimum relevance setting is a filter threshold and takes effect only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. It is not a permission filter, not an entity filter and not a category filter. A similarity score does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Retrieval is not authorization.
Hybrid retrieval combines multiple recall paths through RRF. RRF is a fusion process applied to the result set; it is not a standalone switch that an operator turns on. Reranking requires a rerank model and must be enabled according to the configuration in use. Image retrieval requires image input and the corresponding model capability; it is an optional path in the overall flow and does not run on every request.
For handover, the practical consequence is that the operator must read the status field in the source document. Pending review does not show that the operator lacks permission. Signing, reaching commercial agreement and contract effectiveness are three separate facts. A quotation validity period does not represent a supply period. Where a document does not state a field, the field is unknown and the evidence gap is recorded as an open item rather than resolved by inference.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Starting point for this hypothetical drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Ordering handbook base and credit approval base | Both bases must use the same vector model before they can be associated; check the model identifier first and exclude any base that does not match |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | The credit form contains both a number and a status word, so compare semantic recall and full-text recall paths against the same query |
| Reference cap | 3000 tokens | Hypothetical starting point for this drill, chosen to test whether a long approval form is truncated; compare against a 1500-token run on the same document |
| Minimum relevance | 0.4 | Hypothetical starting point; label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then adjust the threshold, which applies only in semantic retrieval or reranking |
| Question optimization | Enabled | Used for coreference resolution and question expansion; compare the original question with the optimized question and check whether the subject was altered |
| Result reranking | Enabled | Second-pass ordering when candidates are numerous; the score runs from 0 to 1 and can be used for filtering |
The reference cap is measured in tokens. It is not a top-k item count. The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold and is not the final ordering rule.
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as credit approval. Input the draft sentence and the credit approval source text. Compare the status field "pending review" with the draft wording "has been approved." The observable result is that the draft is judged unsupported when the status field does not match.
- Treating pending review as absence of operating permission. Input the approval status and the handover request. Compare "pending review" with "no permission." The observable result is that the two are not the same fact and the request status remains unresolved.
- Treating a quotation validity period as a supply period. Input the sample list and the contract clause. Compare the validity period field with the supply period field. The observable result is that the two fields are distinct and neither substitutes for the other.
How to verify the setup
- Input the credit approval source text from the hypothetical drill sample together with the draft sentence. Compare the status field "pending review" with the draft wording "has been approved." The condition is satisfied when the judgment is unsupported; the check fails when the draft is judged approved.
- Input the sample list source text together with the handover request. Compare the receipt status "not signed" with the request wording "signed." The condition is satisfied when the judgment is unsupported; the check fails when the item is judged signed.
- Input a query containing only a number. Compare the reference content returned by full-text retrieval with the reference content returned by hybrid retrieval. The condition is satisfied when the number is matched and the reference is complete; a zero-length or truncated reference is recorded as a failure branch. A zero-length result can be checked against a downstream design using an explicit paper input of an empty array; no claim is made that a rule-based query must return an empty array.
Across all three checks, the comparison must use the same subject, the same period and the same field. Only mutually exclusive values in the same field constitute a contradiction. Where a field is not stated, or only stage-related evidence exists, the result is unsupported or pending verification, not a denial and not a conflict. Where the material needed for a check is not inside the accessible target retrieval scope or a defined manual input, the gap is recorded as missing evidence rather than filled by assumption.