What the documents look like
A fresh-food concession counter in a hypermarket is frequently run by a supplier who stations staff on site and shares sales revenue with the store. The store's fresh-food department, the concession supplier and the store manager all take part in daily operations. This arrangement means citation tracing at handover has to work across two families of material at the same time. One family defines operating authority and handover responsibility, typically the concession contract. The other family records what actually happened on a given day, typically the daily sales report, the shrinkage or loss sheet, and the food purchase inspection record. Source data comes from the POS system, supplier delivery notes, food-safety ledgers and store stock counts, with updates at daily or per-batch frequency.
These materials sit in different states when a handover is discussed. Some are signed and in force. Some are only requests awaiting review. Some are quotations or expressions of interest. The task of citation tracing is to attach each statement in an answer or a handover judgement back to the specific source text, and to check the state that source text is actually in. A retrieval hit shows which passages were recalled. It does not show that any party holds operating authority, and it does not execute an authorization. A pending review request is not an approval. An offered option is not an execution. An unsigned termination is not a completed termination.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, for vector search. Its output is an array of cited content, and the length may be zero. When nothing is retrieved, the output path still runs through. Retrieval output therefore describes recalled text only. It is not a category filter, an entity filter or a permission filter, and it does not isolate records by supplier or by store.
The minimum relevance value is a filter threshold, and it takes effect only under semantic search or when result reranking is used. It does not perform the job of separating unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Hybrid search merges multiple result paths through RRF. Reranking requires a model and must be enabled by configuration. Image retrieval requires corresponding image input and model capability. These paths are optional and are not all executed on every request.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the fresh-food department of a hypermarket and a concession supplier conduct a paper-based cross-check for the handover of a chilled pork counter. Source text one is an excerpt from the concession contract: "This contract takes effect on the date both parties sign. Party B may operate the chilled pork business at counter 3, and the sales share is calculated from the daily sales report." Source text two is an excerpt from the handover record: "On 10 March 2025, the shrinkage sheet for chilled pork at counter 3 was signed and confirmed by the store manager on duty, for a quantity of 2.4 kilograms." The draft sentence to be judged is: "The supplier obtained operating authority for chilled pork at counter 3 on 10 March 2025, and the handover was completed." The check compares the stated source of authority in the draft against the contract's effective-date clause, and compares the stated handover completion against the scope actually covered by the signature confirmation, to decide whether the draft sentence is supported by the source text.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Setting relevant to this page | How to check, and the boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select knowledge bases that share the same vector model for vector search | Verify the vector model identifier first and exclude any that do not match; do not run a joint search across differing models |
| Cited content output | The citation array length may be zero | When the array is empty, check the downstream handling design; do not infer that retrieval must return empty |
| Citation input handover | Retrieval output is passed to the answering step | Compare each answer statement against the cited source text; do not substitute answer fluency for source evidence |
| Citation display check | Use a traceable sample to check source display | Observe whether the citation points to the contract, report, shrinkage sheet or inspection record text |
| Material validity check | Test sources with a current version and a historical version | Whether a citation is adopted still requires review against the effective version; do not auto-determine effectiveness |
| Minimum relevance | Takes effect only under semantic search or result reranking | Use it as a filter threshold; do not use it as a means of permission or entity isolation |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as proof of authority. The input is a query for "operating authority for chilled pork at counter 3," and the comparison object is the retrieved contract excerpt against the draft sentence. If the draft asserts directly that the supplier has obtained authority, while the contract states only a signing-based effective condition, then the authority state still depends on the signing fact, and the retrieval hit does not constitute authorization.
- Treating a request awaiting review as an executed handover. The input is the signature confirmation and the shrinkage quantity in the handover record, and the comparison object is the phrase "the handover was completed" against the scope the record actually covers. If the record confirms only the shrinkage quantity, and states nothing about counter transfer, stock counting or transfer of responsibility, then the handover completion state is not supported.
- Mixing evidence from different fields or different periods and calling it a conflict. The input is the contract effective date and the shrinkage sheet date, and the comparison object is the value of the same field over the same period. If the two belong to different facts and different periods, no conflict can be determined; the result is recorded as pending verification or unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Against source text one and the draft sentence in the hypothetical exercise sample: the input is the contract excerpt "takes effect on the date both parties sign" together with the draft sentence "obtained operating authority on 10 March 2025." Compare the two on the stated source of authority and the effective condition. If the draft provides no signing fact and no authorization document, the result is unsupported, and the evidence gap is preserved.
- Against source text two and the draft sentence: the input is the handover record "the shrinkage sheet was signed and confirmed by the store manager on duty, for a quantity of 2.4 kilograms" together with the draft sentence "the handover was completed." Compare the scope the record covers against the facts a completed handover would require. If the record states nothing about counter transfer or transfer of responsibility, the result is pending verification, and the handover is not treated as completed.
- Against the citation output path: the input is an explicit paper-based empty array []. Compare whether the downstream handling design processes an empty citation set, and observe whether the path runs through without error. This check does not claim that a fictional rule search must return empty, and it does not infer missing authority from an empty result.