What the documents look like
Channel diversion review addresses regional and price-order questions. It does not calculate rebate amounts. The working materials are diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices, and investigation photographs. These documents arrive from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records, and market inspections. Typical roles include brand channel control staff, anti-counterfeit teams, and regional managers. Errors in this setting affect price systems, distributor relationships, and brand complaints. Weekly and irregular updates are common, but update frequency does not change how citation tracing works at handover.
For operations handover, the central question is what authorization state a material, an operation, or a request occupies. A knowledge base search returns citation content. A retrieved passage shows that the passage relates to the query. It does not show that the person making the request holds authorization, and it does not show that a penalty has been executed. Image retrieval depends on image indexes built at ingestion and on model capability. Whether an investigation photograph can be recalled depends on those conditions and is separate from any permission judgment.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node outputs a citation array, and its length can be zero. An empty array still lets the downstream chain run. The minimum relevance setting applies only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. It is a filter threshold and does not perform permission or entity isolation. Linking knowledge bases requires the same vector model. That condition applies to knowledge base linking and does not extend to business registration sites or other external systems. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, which is part of the retrieval process. Reranking requires a model and must be enabled by configuration. Image retrieval requires image input and model capability. These optional paths do not all execute on every request.
Hypothetical drill sample: a brand channel control staff member submits a handover request on 10 March 2026, proposing to transfer diversion complaint form number A-2026-0310 to a regional manager. The complaint form text reads: "The complainant states that an authorized store in the East China region sells below the suggested retail price, with three anti-counterfeit code records attached. This form is in pending review status; no penalty decision has been made." The draft sentence reads: "This complaint form has completed verification, the penalty has been executed, and it is now transferred to the regional manager." The complaint form text records only pending review and records no verification conclusion and no penalty execution. The draft sentence and the source text disagree on the status field, and the draft sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below is a hypothetical starting point for this drill, used to check citation sources and handover status. It is not an official default.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Check method and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Linked knowledge bases | Select two bases with the same vector model | Check model identifiers first; exclude those that differ |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Compare recall differences against semantic retrieval alone |
| Minimum relevance | Set 0.5 as the drill starting point | Compare filtered counts against 0.3 and 0.7 |
| Citation limit | Set 2000 tokens as the drill starting point | Compare citation length against 1000 and 4000 |
| Question optimization | Enabled | Compare consecutive follow-up recall against disabled |
| Result reranking | Enabled per configuration | Compare ranking scores against disabled |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization. Input the complaint form text and the draft sentence. Compare the status field in the source text with the wording of the draft sentence. The draft sentence contains "completed verification" and "penalty has been executed" while the source text records only pending review. This is an error.
- Treating pending review as missing operation permission. Input the same complaint form. Compare the review status with the permission field. The source text records no permission information. The result can only be recorded as unsupported, not as a negative finding.
- Linking knowledge bases that use different vector models. Input the model identifiers of the two bases. Compare whether the identifiers match. When they do not match, exclude that base and record the actual observation. Do not infer missed recall or redundant results.
How to verify the setup
- Input the complaint form text and the draft sentence. Compare the status field. The condition is satisfied when the draft sentence keeps "pending review" and contains no statement that the penalty has been executed.
- Input an explicit paper empty array []. Compare the downstream handling design. The condition is satisfied when the empty citation still enters the answer stage and does not terminate with an error.
- Input the model identifiers of the two bases. Compare whether they match. They may be linked together only when the identifiers match. When they do not match, exclude the base and record the observation. Do not run a cross-model retrieval comparison.
These checks use the hypothetical source text, draft sentence, and request given above. Expected outcomes are stated, and no test has been run. The minimum relevance value and the citation limit are drill starting points chosen for comparison, not official defaults. Retrieval is not authorization. A pending request is not approval. An unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Where the source text does not state a field, the value remains unknown.