What the documents look like
Price and display checks happen during ordinary store operation, so the recurring question is whether standards continue to be followed after opening support ends. The materials come from the supervision system, POS price lists, store cameras and headquarters promotion calendars. Daily documents are store visit photographs, price tag lists, display standards and rectification notices. These materials update weekly or monthly, and the same price tag can belong to different promotion periods while the same visit photograph can represent a state before or after rectification.
Citation tracing answers a narrow question at handover: which period, which store and which authorization stage a received material belongs to, and whether that material can support a later judgment. Update frequency does not change this page's function; it serves only as a time reference when comparing versions.
Constraints at the citation tracing step
A knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that share the same vector model. Its output is an array of citations whose length may be zero, and an empty array does not mean the workflow raised an error or stopped. The retrieval result must be passed to the answering step, where each answer sentence is checked against the cited source text. A similarity score orders relevance and does not perform permission or entity isolation; retrieval itself is not authorization. Authorization states in operations handover need separate checking: a pending review is not an approval, an offered option is not an executed action, and an unsigned termination document is not a completed termination.
Hypothetical drill sample: a chain brand operations department transfers a batch of materials to a regional supervisor on 10 March 2026, for checking price tag execution at Store A during 1 March to 7 March. Two source sentences are: "Store A price tag list for 1 March to 7 March, version number V3, status pending review by the regional manager." and "Three store visit photographs for Store A on 3 March, showing beverage shelf price tags." The draft sentence to be judged is: "Store A price tag execution for 1 March to 7 March has passed review and can be closed." The difference from the source is that the source status reads pending review while the draft reads passed review; these are mutually exclusive values on the same field.
Configuration and implementation checks
The configuration below stays with the sample and lists only documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this page and its primary task.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Select the knowledge base holding this brand's price tag lists and store visit photographs | Check whether the selected bases use the same vector model; different models cannot be associated together |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Price tag version numbers are exact queries and display descriptions are semantic queries, compared with semantic retrieval alone |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point of 3000 tokens for this drill | This value is a drill starting point, used to compare citation count against 1500 tokens |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point of 0.4 for this drill | Used to compare recalled count against 0.6; not used to exclude unauthorized stores |
| Result rerank | Enabled | Reorders text results when candidates are numerous, compared with leaving it disabled |
| Citation output | Carry the retrieval output array | Check whether each answer sentence corresponds to source text; an empty array still flows downstream |
Three common errors
- Writing a pending review status as passed review. The input is the source sentence "status pending review by the regional manager"; the comparison object is the draft sentence "has passed review"; the observable result is that the two take mutually exclusive values on the same field.
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorization basis. The input is the price tag list citation returned by retrieval; the comparison object is the authorization status field for that material in the handover list; the observable result is that a citation exists while the authorization field is not stated.
- Associating knowledge bases with different vector models. The input is the vector model identifier of two knowledge bases; the comparison object is the documented condition that models must be the same; the observable result is that when the identifiers differ, one must be excluded.
How to verify the setup
- Input the source sentence "version number V3, status pending review by the regional manager" and the draft sentence "has passed review"; compare their values on the same field. If the draft is mutually exclusive with the source, the draft is unsupported and must be returned for confirmation.
- Input the 3 March store visit photograph citation and the 1 March to 7 March period; compare whether the photograph date falls inside that period. If it falls inside, period consistency is satisfied; if the date is missing, record the evidence gap.
- Input the vector model identifiers of two knowledge bases; compare whether they are identical. If identical, the joint association condition is satisfied; if different, exclude the non-matching base and record the actual observation, without running cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
A paper input of an empty array [] can be used to check whether the downstream design flows through; it does not mean a fictional rule retrieval will necessarily return an empty array.