What the documents look like
Fresh-food supplier claims pursue responsibility for quality problems found at goods receipt. They sit apart from in-store natural shrinkage, which follows its own process. The working materials are quality exception forms, photo evidence, deduction notices and claim reconciliation statements. They come from quality inspection systems, WMS receiving, supplier contracts and financial reconciliation. Two update rhythms coexist: every delivery batch and every monthly reconciliation. During handover, the batch scope and the month scope must be checked separately.
For operations permission and handover management, these materials carry a specific meaning. A claim assertion depends on evidence fixed at receiving inspection. The progress of a deduction or compensation depends on authorization status. A search can locate a document. A form can record a request. Neither one constitutes authorization or execution.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node outputs a citation content array, and its length may be zero. When the array is empty, the output path still completes. Knowledge bases can be associated together only when they share the same vector model. The citation limit is controlled by tokens. The minimum relevance value takes effect during semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used, and it acts as a filter threshold. It does not perform permission isolation or entity isolation.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material for comparison reads — "On 12 March 2025, the quality inspector recorded on receiving form YS-0312-07: delivery batch A-0312 of leafy vegetables showed wilted leaves, photo numbers P-0312-07-01 through 03. Clause 4.2 of the supplier contract states that quality exceptions must be raised within 48 hours of arrival. The draft deduction notice proposes a deduction of RMB 800, status pending review by the quality inspection supervisor." One sentence awaiting judgment reads: "The claim for this batch has been established, and the deduction notice has taken effect."
This draft sentence requires three layers of comparison: subject, object and status. The subject is the quality inspector and the supplier. The object is batch A-0312. The status is pending review. A draft status does not constitute approval. A contract clause setting a time limit does not mean the claim has been established.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below centres on the sample material and the primary task. It lists only documented settings or implementation checks. The numeric values are starting points for this hypothetical trial, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | How to check |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select the quality inspection, contract and finance libraries | Compare vector model identifiers; exclude any that do not match |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point 3000 tokens | Compare against the total length of the sample material; observe whether citations are complete |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point 0.5 | Compare against the actual score distribution of the sample query; observe the number of items after filtering |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Compare against semantic retrieval alone; observe hits for identifier-type queries |
| Result reranking | Enabled as configured | Compare against scores without reranking; observe ranking changes |
| Citation output handoff | Connected to the answering step | Check each answer item against the cited source text |
The citation limit starting point of 3000 tokens is chosen because the sample contains three materials, and it must be compared against the actual material length before adjustment. The minimum relevance starting point of 0.5 must be compared against the actual score distribution of the sample query.
Three common errors
- Treating a draft status as already effective. In the sample, the deduction notice is pending review, while the draft sentence says it has taken effect. The input is the draft status field. The comparison object is the review record required for effect. The observable result is that a missing review signature means the statement is not supported.
- Treating a retrieval result as an authorization basis. The input is a contract clause citation returned by search. The comparison object is the authorization chain required for the claim to be established. The observable result is that a citation containing no approval record cannot advance the deduction.
- Associating libraries with different vector models. The input is the vector model identifier of the three libraries. The comparison object is identifier consistency. The observable result is that a mismatched identifier means the library is excluded and recorded, and no cross-model retrieval is performed.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source material and the draft sentence. Compare the status description in the draft sentence against the pending-review field in the source. The observable result is that a contradiction between the draft sentence and the source is marked as not supported, and the claim must not be judged as established.
- Input the search query "batch A-0312 quality exception". Compare the returned citations against the sample source material. The observable result is that the citation content matches the source and its origin can be traced. When the array is empty, the downstream design handles it, and no claim is made that a hit is guaranteed.
- Input the vector model identifiers of the three libraries. Compare whether the identifiers are consistent. The observable result is that consistent libraries can be associated together, while inconsistent ones are excluded and the actual observation is recorded. No inference is made about the runtime result of cross-model retrieval.