What the documents look like
Title and detail-page compliance deals with the truthfulness of promotional wording and the display of qualifications. It does not cover parcel delivery, which separates this work from platform shipping operations. The materials handled day to day are the product title table, detail-page assets, the prohibited-terms list for advertising, and quality inspection reports. The most time-consuming steps are checking absolute-word claims, comparing stated parameters against the physical item, and replacing non-compliant assets. Material updates occur weekly and at each new listing. This page does not infer batch synchronization or real-time triggering from that cadence.
These materials sit in different states during an operations handover. An asset may be a draft, pending review, or already published. An inspection report may be in submission, issued, or expired. Citation tracing requires that each title and detail sentence carry its corresponding rule clause, asset version, and report number, and that the handover check the state and authorization boundary.
Knowledge-base search accepts one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model, and outputs cited content as an array whose length may be zero. An empty array means the output path still runs; it does not mean the workflow terminated with an error. The retrieved output is passed to an answering step, where each answer sentence is checked against the cited source text.
Hypothetical drill sample. Source text one: "Product title table V3, version dated 10 March 2025, holder is a store operations group, object is the insulated bottle title row, state is pending legal review, authorization scope is internal editing only and excludes external publication." Source text two: "Advertising prohibited-terms list, February 2025 version, holder is the compliance group, object is the list of absolute terms, state is in effect, applicable scope is all listed products." Source text three: "Inspection report QC-0312, holder is a testing body, object is insulated bottle batch B25, state is issued, valid range through March 2026."
Draft sentence to be judged: "This insulated bottle keeps heat best of all, has passed inspection, and can go live immediately." Handover request: "Operations group, please change this title from pending review to published."
The draft sentence contains the absolute term "best," which conflicts with the prohibited-terms list. The inspection report only evidences batch testing and states no promotional authorization. The title table state is pending legal review, and the handover request exceeds the authorization boundary.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The search node requires that selected knowledge bases share the same vector model before they can be associated together. Citation output is an array and may be empty. A zero-length result does not prove the query failed and does not prove the query succeeded; it is an observation to be recorded. The retrieved passages must be handed to the answering step, and each answer sentence must be checked line by line against the cited source text.
The prohibited-terms list is a rule document. Its entries are compared against the words used in the draft sentence. A term present in the list supports a finding that revision is needed. A term absent from the list is recorded as unverified, not as compliant.
The inspection report is a batch-level document. Its stated valid range and object are compared against the promotional use being made of it. A report that does not state promotional authorization leaves an evidence gap. A report that states promotional authorization covering the current batch supports the claim.
The title table state field is compared against the requested action. Pending legal review does not prove that the operations group lacks editing permission, and it does not prove that publication permission has been granted. The request to change the state to published is not supported by the evidence currently present.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and task, tied to the sample above. The numeric values are hypothetical starting points for this drill, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select the title table and the prohibited-terms list | Compare the two vector model identifiers; associate only when they match |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Compare keyword hit counts against semantic-only search results |
| Citation upper limit | Set to 2000 tokens for this drill | Compare against the total length of the three sample source texts to confirm coverage |
| Minimum relevance | Set to 0.5 for this drill | Compare against the rerank score to observe whether low-relevance fragments are filtered |
| Result rerank | Enabled | Compare ordering stability against results without rerank |
| Citation output handoff | Connect to the answering node | Check whether each answer sentence corresponds to a cited source passage |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieved output as an authorization credential. Input is the citation array returned by the search node; the comparison object is the title table state field. The citation array contains the title row content, and the title table state is pending legal review. Observable result: if the cited content is used directly for publication, the action exceeds the authorization scope. The correct step is to check the state field before deciding.
- Treating an inspection report number as promotional authorization. Input is report QC-0312; the comparison object is the valid range stated in the report. The report states batch testing only and does not state that it may be used for advertising. Observable result: the draft sentence cites the inspection as promotional support, and the corresponding authorization field is absent.
- Reading a pending-review state as absence of editing permission. Input is the title table state "pending legal review"; the comparison object is the authorization scope of the handover request. Pending review does not prove that the operations group lacks editing permission, and does not prove that publication permission has been obtained. Observable result: the handover request asks for the state to be changed to published, and the current evidence does not support that action.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three hypothetical source texts and the draft sentence; compare the wording of the draft sentence against the entries of the prohibited-terms list. If the draft sentence contains an absolute term listed in the list, record it as requiring revision. If the list does not contain that term, record it as pending verification and do not judge it compliant.
- Input the handover request and the title table state field; compare the requested action against the authorization scope. If the state is pending legal review and the request is to change to published, record it as exceeding current authorization. If the state is approved after review and the request falls within the authorized scope, record it as executable.
- Input the inspection report number and its valid range; compare the promotional basis of the draft sentence against the range stated in the report. If the report states no promotional authorization, record an evidence gap. If the report states that promotional use is permitted and the range covers the current batch, record it as supported.
For empty-result handoff, a paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design, without asserting that a fictional rule query will return an empty array.