What the documents look like
Multi-store matrix management for a brand sits on the authorization relationship between the brand and its distributors. The working materials are store authorization lists, price control tables, cross-territory complaint forms, and monthly sales reports. Brand e-commerce leads and channel operators compare subject, store, authorization status, and validity period across these materials. Compared with single-store advertising work, the matrix category depends more on correspondences between documents, because cross-store authorization and price order cannot be read from one file alone. Retrieval results supply candidate passages only. Authorization status and handover conclusions require a person to check the original wording.
A store authorization list records which distributor is authorized for which platform store and for which dates. A price control table records a floor price for a named store in a named month. A complaint form records an alleged cross-territory sale. A monthly sales report records volume by store. None of these four document types, by itself, proves that an authorization was terminated, that a handover was completed, or that a distributor lost the right to adjust prices.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together. The vector model identifier must be checked first, non-matching bases excluded, and the actual observation recorded. The node outputs cited content as an array, and the length may be 0, meaning the downstream path still runs when nothing is retrieved.
Similarity and the minimum relevance value act on content relevance only. They do not decide store authorization, distributor identity, or permission isolation. Hybrid search merges multiple recall paths through RRF, which is a result-fusion process. Image retrieval requires an image input and the corresponding model capability. Reranking requires a rerank model and must be enabled in settings. These paths do not run on every request.
Hypothetical drill sample: a brand channel operator writes in a handover record: "Store authorization list (number A-07) states that the authorized party is East China distributor A, the authorized store is platform store S-12, the authorization period is 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2025, and the authorization status is effective." In the same batch, price control table (number P-03) states: "The online price of store S-12 in March 2025 must not be lower than 199 yuan." The draft sentence to be judged is: "East China distributor A's operating permission for store S-12 terminated on 31 December 2025, and after handover it no longer holds price adjustment permission." This draft sentence concerns a termination fact and post-handover permission. The source text does not state whether a termination operation was completed, so the matter remains to be verified.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Associate the bases holding the store authorization list and the price control table | Check the vector model identifier of each base and exclude bases whose models differ |
| Search mode | Test semantic search and full-text search separately | Compare the recalled content of the two modes using the same test question |
| Citation limit | Set 2000 tokens as the starting point for this drill | Test whether long and short authorization list passages remain complete, and compare with a smaller value |
| Minimum relevance | Set 0.4 as the starting point for this drill | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then compare filtering against 0.3 and 0.5 |
| Question optimization | Enable for handover follow-up questions that contain references | Compare the original question with the optimized question and check whether the subject was altered |
| Result reranking | Enable per settings when candidates are numerous | Compare scores and order before and after reranking to confirm whether relevance improved |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization confirmation. The input is the draft sentence and the authorization list text. If the return of an authorization list passage is taken to mean the termination is effective, that is an error. The authorization list states an authorization period and does not state a termination operation, so the termination fact still needs manual checking.
- Treating minimum relevance as a permission filter. The input is a semantic search query and a minimum relevance setting. If raising that value is expected to exclude unauthorized stores, that is an error. The value filters low-relevance content and does not distinguish store authorization status.
- Forcing association of bases with different vector models. The input is two bases with different vector model identifiers. If they are associated directly and recall results compared on that basis, that is an error. The identifiers should be checked first, non-matching bases excluded, and the actual observation recorded.
How to verify the setup
- Input the authorization list text from the hypothetical sample and the draft sentence. Compare the termination fact stated in the draft sentence with the authorization period stated in the source. The source states only that the authorization period runs to 31 December 2025 and does not state a termination operation. The expected conclusion is pending verification, and the termination must not be judged effective.
- Input the price control table text and the same draft sentence. Compare the price adjustment permission with the price constraint stated in the source. The source states that the March 2025 price must not be lower than 199 yuan and does not state who holds permission after handover. The expected conclusion is unsupported, and the evidence gap must be preserved.
- Input two bases with different vector model identifiers. Check the identifiers and exclude the non-matching base. The expected result is that cross-model association retrieval is not performed, the identifier difference is recorded, and no missed recall or redundancy outcome is inferred. For the empty-result case, a paper input of [] can be used to check the downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule search always returns [].