What the documents look like
Multi-store matrix operations involve authorization relationships among brand owners, channel operations teams and dealer e-commerce teams. The working materials include store authorization lists, price control tables, cross-territory complaint forms and monthly sales reports. Data sources cover platform merchant backends, ERP channel prices, brand anti-counterfeit systems and dealer reports. Together these materials determine whether a given store holds the qualification to sell a brand's products during a specific period, and whether price order has been observed. The citation tracing task is to let every material and every retrieval output in an operations handover point back to its source document, and to distinguish which states are authorized, pending review or unsupported. Materials update daily and monthly; this page does not derive batch synchronization or real-time triggering from that cadence.
For this category, the difference from single-store advertising lies in cross-store authorization and price order rather than single-store traffic efficiency. The consequence of error is price system confusion, dealer conflict and consumers receiving non-genuine goods. The three most time-consuming steps are aligning multi-store prices, identifying unauthorized stores and coordinating inventory allocation. Citation tracing sits inside the handover step: it does not decide authorization, it records what the source documents actually say.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node can select 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, which means the output link still runs even when nothing is retrieved. The minimum relevance score takes effect only under semantic search or result reranking, and it is a filter threshold, not a permission or entity isolation function. Hybrid search merges multiple result paths through RRF; reranking depends on the ReRank model; image retrieval requires the corresponding image input and model capability. These paths do not all execute on every request. Retrieval behavior itself does not constitute authorization, a form collecting values does not equal completed approval, and database writes and external synchronization require separately connected system implementations.
Hypothetical paper test case. Source material text: "Authorization list item 7: Store A, authorized brand X, authorization period 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, status is pending review. Price control table row 3: Store A, brand X, minimum price 100 yuan, effective date 1 January 2025. Cross-territory complaint form No. 12: complaint that Store A sold brand X goods at 85 yuan on 5 March 2025, status is pending verification." A draft sentence reads: "Store A obtained sales authorization for brand X in March 2025 and can normally participate in price control." The task is to judge whether the draft sentence is supported by the materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists, around this page's sample, settings already described in the official documents or implementation check items. The numeric values are hypothetical starting points for this trial, with the reason for choosing them and the comparison object stated.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Authorization list base and price control table base | The two bases must share the same vector model before they can be associated together; check the identifier first and exclude non-matching ones, without running cross-model retrieval comparison |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | The sample contains identifiers and proper nouns, so full-text recall and semantic recall merge through RRF; compare against semantic search alone |
| Result reranking | Enabled | When candidates are numerous, use ReRank for secondary ordering with a 0-1 score; compare against ordering without reranking |
| Minimum relevance score | 0.3 | A starting point for this trial, used to observe the change in the number of citations after filtering; compare against a 0.5 starting point, without claiming an official default |
| Citation limit | 2000 tokens | A starting point for this trial, controlling total citation length; compare against a 1000-token starting point for citation coverage |
| Cited content output | Array, length may be zero | Use the paper input [] to check the downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns [] |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval output as an authorization credential. Input: the citation array returned by the search node. Comparison object: the status field "pending review" for Store A in the authorization list. Observable result: the cited content includes the authorization list text, but the status field shows pending review, and the retrieval hit does not change that status.
- Treating a pending-verification complaint form as confirmed cross-territory selling. Input: cross-territory complaint form No. 12. Comparison object: its status field "pending verification" against the draft sentence's "can normally participate in price control." Observable result: the complaint form records no verification conclusion, and the draft sentence's affirmative judgment is unsupported.
- Forcing knowledge bases with different vector models into joint association. Input: the vector model identifiers of the authorization list base and the price control table base. Comparison object: whether the two are identical. Observable result: when the identifiers differ, exclude the non-matching one and record the actual observation, without asserting missed recall or redundancy as a runtime outcome.
How to verify the setup
- Input the authorization list text and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample. Compare the draft sentence's "obtained sales authorization for brand X" against the list's status field "pending review." Observable result: the two share the same subject, the same period and the same field, but their values are mutually exclusive, so the draft sentence is judged unsupported and the evidence gap is retained.
- Input cross-territory complaint form No. 12 and the draft sentence "can normally participate in price control." Compare the complaint form's status "pending verification" against the draft sentence's affirmative conclusion. Observable result: the complaint form records no verification conclusion, the draft sentence exceeds the material's scope, and the judgment is pending verification.
- Input the vector model identifiers of the two knowledge bases and compare whether they are identical. Observable result: only when the identifiers match may the two be associated together; when they differ, exclude the non-matching one and record it, without running cross-model retrieval to compare missed recall.
Two further checks belong to this step. Confirm that the search node's cited content array is passed to the answering stage, and check each answer item against its cited source text. Use a traceable sample to check that source text is displayed, and do not substitute the thinking process or answer fluency for source evidence. Use the current version and a historical version of a document to test the source; whether a citation is adopted still requires review against the effective version.