What the documents look like
Brand livestream teams carry their own scripts, inventory responsibility and after-sales handling, so the working materials differ from those of creator-hosted sessions. Four document types dominate daily handover: the livestream script, the product explanation card, the shift roster and the livestream review. These materials update by session and by hour, and they move between hosts, floor controllers and traffic specialists as shifts change.
For citation tracing, the practical question is narrow. When a handover occurs, the two sides need to confirm which version of a document a spoken line or product claim came from, and who confirmed at what time that the version was usable. The materials themselves carry version markers and review status fields; the retrieval layer does not carry authorization.
The update rhythm matters because an old script and a new explanation card can coexist during a shift change. A citation that resolves to a document fragment tells the reader where text came from. It does not tell the reader whether that text was approved for the current session.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node outputs citations as an array, and the array length can be zero. An empty array still lets the downstream output path run. That behavior belongs to the node itself. It cannot be read as evidence that retrieval failed, and it cannot be read as evidence that a handover was authorized.
Knowledge bases selected together must share the same vector model. Libraries with different vector models cannot be associated in one search. During a handover check, the first action is to inspect the library identifier, exclude any library that does not match, and record what was observed. A cross-model search must not be executed to compare recall gaps.
Retrieval and similarity scores do not perform permission or entity isolation. A retrieved citation is not an authorization record. Relevance values filter low-scoring results only in semantic retrieval or after result re-ranking, and they do not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records.
Hypothetical paper exercise. A brand livestream team plans a handover for the 20:00 session on 10 June 2025, where the floor controller switches the host script from Explanation Card A to Explanation Card B. The draft sentence under review reads: "Version B is approved for use in this session, and the old version stops immediately." The source text supplied for comparison reads: "Explanation Card B was submitted for review by the operations group at 18:00 on 9 June 2025. Review status is pending review. Explanation Card A is the version effective from 1 June 2025, and no discontinuation date is recorded." The draft sentence claims "approved," while the source text contains only a pending-review record. Pending review is not approval. The draft sentence claims the old version "stops immediately," while the source text has no corresponding field for that claim.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Purpose on this page | Basis for judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge base identifier | Confirm the retrieval scope for handover materials | Only libraries with the same vector model can be associated together; mismatches are excluded |
| Citation content output | Carry retrieval results into the answering step | Array length may be zero; an empty array still runs the output path |
| Citation upper limit (tokens) | Control the length of cited content per search | Measured in tokens, not top k |
| Minimum relevance | Filter low-relevance results | Takes effect only in semantic retrieval or after result re-ranking |
| Document version marker | Distinguish Version A from Version B sources | Check each answer against the cited source text |
| Review status field | Record pending review and effective status | Pending review does not constitute approval |
Hypothetical starting value for this exercise: the citation upper limit is set to 2000 tokens. The reason for choosing this value is that it allows the sample to hold both Version A and Version B fragments at once. The comparison object is the actual cited content length in the sample. This value is a paper-exercise starting point only and is not an official default.
Three common errors
- Treating "pending review" as "approved." Input: the review status field in the source text. Comparison: the phrase "approved" in the draft sentence. Observable result: the two values do not match, and pending review does not constitute approval.
- Treating a retrieval hit as a completed handover authorization. Input: the citation array from the knowledge base search node. Comparison: the authorization status field in the handover request. Observable result: when the retrieval output carries no authorization field, the authorization status remains unknown.
- Treating the absence of a discontinuation date for the old version as proof that it was discontinued. Input: the effective date and discontinuation date fields for Version A in the source text. Comparison: the phrase "stops immediately" in the draft sentence. Observable result: when the discontinuation date is missing, the claim is unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Using the hypothetical source text and draft sentence above, check whether the review status field value matches "approved." When the field reads "pending review," the draft sentence does not satisfy the condition, and the result is recorded as unsupported.
- Using the same hypothetical sample, check the output array of the knowledge base search node against the authorization field in the handover request. When the array carries no authorization field, the authorization status remains unknown and is not judged as authorized.
- Using the same hypothetical sample, check the effective date and discontinuation date fields for Version A. When the discontinuation date is missing, "stops immediately" does not satisfy the condition, and the result is recorded as an evidence gap.
A paper check can also use an explicitly written empty input [] to confirm how the downstream design handles an empty citation array. This does not claim that any retrieval rule will return [].
The overall search flow lists optional paths that do not all execute on every request. Image retrieval requires an image input and a model with the corresponding capability. Re-ranking requires a re-rank model and must be enabled by configuration.