What the documents look like
Store cold-chain receiving for fresh products produces four recurring document types: cold-chain temperature records, arrival acceptance sheets, rejection sheets, and supplier delivery notes. These materials draw on cold-chain vehicle temperature control, the WMS, the store receiving system, and quality-inspection photographs. They update per batch and per day. The temperature records and inspection photographs are process evidence, while the acceptance sheet and rejection sheet are conclusion evidence. The two evidence classes carry different authorization boundaries, and a missing document prevents the handover from confirming what the previous shift actually decided about a delivery. This page addresses one task: operations permission and handover management for citation tracing. It does not treat retrieval or a form as an authorization to execute a business action.
For citation tracing, the relevant question is whether a drafted statement or handover request can be traced back to the wording of a source document, and whether the authorization status recorded in that document supports the action described. A temperature reading, an acceptance conclusion, and a rejection reason are different fields, and they must be compared field by field rather than inferred from the presence of a document.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
The knowledge base search node first checks the selected knowledge bases and the document version in use. Only knowledge bases that share the same vector model can be associated together. The search node outputs cited content as an array, and the length may be zero; an empty array still lets the output path continue. Retrieval results must be passed to the answer step, and the answer must then be compared line by line against the cited source text. Citation display is verified against a traceable sample. The thinking process and the fluency of the answer do not substitute for source evidence. Retrieval and similarity do not perform authorization judgment, and a relevance score is not a permission filter.
Hypothetical drill sample. One batch of cold-chain arrival material reads: "10 March 2026, cold room A receiving bay, batch L20260310, transport temperature record shows 2 to 6 degrees Celsius throughout, receiving clerk A signed the arrival acceptance sheet, conclusion is accept." A second material for the same day reads: "10 March 2026, batch L20260310, quality inspector B completed a rejection sheet, rejection reason is packaging damage, status is pending supplier confirmation." The draft sentence to be judged is: "Batch L20260310 rejection is complete and the supplier has confirmed." Comparing the draft sentence against the two source texts: the acceptance sheet conclusion is accept, and the rejection sheet status is pending confirmation. The fact stated in the draft sentence is not supported.
The same-subject, same-period, same-field rule applies here. The acceptance sheet records the conclusion field, and the rejection sheet records the status field. The two documents describe the same batch on the same date, but the draft sentence asserts a completed rejection and a supplier confirmation that neither source states. A pending request is not an approval, and an offered option is not execution. An unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Where a field is not stated, or where only a related-stage record exists, the correct label is not supported or pending verification, not denied or contradicted.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select two knowledge bases that share the same vector model | Compare against a knowledge base with a different vector model identifier, and exclude it from joint association |
| Cited content output | Record the output array, which may be empty | Compare against the downstream node input to confirm the empty array still lets the path continue |
| Cited input handling | Pass the retrieval output into the answer step | Compare the answer text line by line against the cited source text |
| Citation display check | Use a traceable sample | Compare against the thinking process and answer fluency, which do not serve as source evidence |
| Document timeliness check | Use the current-version document | Compare against a historical-version document to judge whether the citation comes from a valid version |
| Search mode | Combine semantic retrieval with full-text retrieval | Compare against a single mode for hits on exact fields such as batch numbers |
The vector model requirement applies to the associated knowledge bases inside this search node. It does not extend to business-registration sites or other external systems. RRF is a fusion step for mixed retrieval results, not a toggle. The thinking budget is a reasoning budget and is not a citation token limit. The optional paths in the overall retrieval flow, such as image retrieval or reranking, execute only when the corresponding input and model capability are present and the setting is enabled.
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval output as an authorization credential. Input: the draft sentence and the rejection sheet source text. Comparison: the draft sentence states rejection is complete, while the source text states the status is pending supplier confirmation. Observable result: the two do not match, and the draft sentence is not supported.
- Treating an empty citation array as a workflow failure. Input: a paper record of an explicit empty array. Comparison: whether the downstream node still receives that output. Observable result: if the downstream design accepts an empty array as valid input, the path continues; this behavior must be checked against the actual implementation.
- Associating knowledge bases with different vector models. Input: the vector model identifiers of two knowledge bases. Comparison: whether the identifiers match. Observable result: when the identifiers differ, the two must not be associated; record the identifier difference only, and do not infer runtime results.
How to verify the setup
- Citation source check. Input: the acceptance sheet source text and the answer text from the hypothetical sample. Comparison: the answer wording "accept" against the source text "conclusion is accept." Observable result: when the two match, the citation source is traceable.
- Status judgment check. Input: the rejection sheet source text and the draft sentence. Comparison: "pending supplier confirmation" against "rejection is complete." Observable result: the status fields do not match, and the draft sentence is judged not supported.
- Empty-result handling check. Input: a paper record of an empty array. Comparison: whether the downstream node receives the empty array as designed. Observable result: the downstream path continues without a documented error; this expectation must be confirmed against the actual configuration.
These checks describe what to compare and what remains unknown. They do not assert that a test was run, that a retrieval always returns an empty array, that the first hit is guaranteed, or that unrelated queries return nothing. Where the required material is not present in an accessible target retrieval scope or an explicit manual input, record the gap and leave it open.