How to attach sources to a knowledge-base reply
A knowledge-base reply carries its source when the path, the version mark, and the section are written down, and the owner has opened that section and seen the sentence there, before the reply is approved to send. Retrieval evaluation asks whether a prepared question returned its passage. Whether this reply may leave draft depends on whether the path, the version, and the section are filled in.
On this page
- Keep citations apart from retrieval checks and versioning
- Put the path, the version, and the section on one line
- A chunk label still has to be opened
- No answer in the context means the reply says not found
- Two current files in conflict both stay, each with a source
- Open the passage before approving, and do not lean on a score
- A superseded version cannot be approved
- Leave the reply in draft until the three fields are filled
Keep citations apart from retrieval checks and versioning
Setting up the knowledge base decides which documents may stand as the rule, who may read them, and where the current path is. Versioning decides which file is marked current and who may mark an older file superseded. Retrieval evaluation uses a set of questions whose sources are already known, and asks whether the passage that came back is that current text. A citation is a different record: a reply that is about to be sent, whether or not the question was ever in the test set, has a path, a version mark, and a section before anyone approves it. The four are not folded into "if it answers, send it". See How to build an enterprise knowledge base, How to manage document versions in a knowledge base, and How to evaluate knowledge-base retrieval.
Chunk boundaries are set before indexing, and they are not rewritten here. See How to choose chunk boundaries for a knowledge base. The person who approves must be able to open the path, under the permissions the file store already uses. If they cannot open it, someone else does not sign in their place. See How to set permissions for an enterprise AI assistant. The delivery scope sits under Internal knowledge base and assistant.
Put the path, the version, and the section on one line
Read on 23 October 2026, the RAG prompt-engineering phase on Microsoft Learn describes formatting practices to consider for the context block: label each chunk with an identifier, such as [Source 1], so the reply can cite it, and place metadata beside the chunk, such as the document title, the section heading, or the source URL, so the model can see where the information comes from. The page shows no publication date. Title, section heading, and URL are listed as examples side by side. The page does not require all three, and it does not require a knowledge base to use the label [Source 1].
The approval line therefore has three fixed fields: the path, the version mark, and the section. The path names the folder and the file, and opening it lands on that file in the store. The version mark is the one already written on the current file in the versioning practice. A second series is not started. The section names the heading or the paragraph, so the approver knows where the sentence sits. A title alone, a URL alone, or [Source 1] alone leaves the three fields unfilled. A label in the model's draft can stay on the draft. It enters approval only after it has been matched to the three fields.
A chunk label still has to be opened
The same page puts "require citations" among the grounding instructions: tell the model to point at the source chunks in the reply. Citations make the reply checkable, and they encourage the model to anchor its reasoning to a particular source. The format the page gives is to mark each claim with [Source N]. It also says the grounding constraint has to be explicit: the model may use only the context provided, not a vague "use the context if helpful". Those are instructions in the prompt. An instruction written down is not the same as a sentence that is actually in the file.
The approver opens the section the three fields point at. The sentence is there before they sign. If the sentence is a paraphrase, the approver can point at the sentence in that section it follows. If it does not match, the reply stays a draft, the log quotes the sentence that did not match, and the label is not rewritten as checked. The page does not say a person must sign before a citation counts as done. The signature is the knowledge base's own approval. A score copied from the page does not stand in for it.
No answer in the context means the reply says not found
The same page treats fallback behaviour as one of the grounding rules: if the context does not contain the answer, say in advance what the model should do. The examples it gives include stating that the documents provided do not contain enough to answer, or marking, in a structured reply, which parts of the question could be answered and which could not. In the anti-patterns, the page says that if the prompt does not define what to do when the context is insufficient, the model generates an answer from what it learned in training, and that breaks the constraint of using only the context given. The page does not name a sentence that must be used word for word.
The knowledge base keeps the wording it already uses: the reply is recorded as not found, and it names the owner of the topic. A sentence that reads as complete, but whose three fields match no section, is not approved. If the owner needs a source, the sentence is written into the current file and given a version first, and the new reply then carries the path, the version, and the section. Until then, what is sent is not found, plus the owner's name. How a negative question in the test set is recorded as a miss is in How to evaluate knowledge-base retrieval. That note measures a test. A reply that was never in the set is still not approved without a source.
Two current files in conflict both stay, each with a source
The same page says retrieved chunks can contradict one another, especially when the collection holds material from different periods, authors, or points of view. The instruction should make the model acknowledge the conflict rather than quietly pick a side. The page's example is: if the sources conflict, present both and cite each. Do not silently favour one.
If both lines match their own current files, both sentences stay in the reply, each with a path, a version, and a section. The approver does not merge them into one unsourced "company rule". Which file should be marked superseded, and which stays current, goes back to the versioning practice, and the owner of that document changes the mark. Until the mark changes, a reply that is sent carries both sources. If the business can live with only one wording, the reply stays a draft until the current mark is changed and the check is done again.
Open the passage before approving, and do not lean on a score
The retrieval note uses a question, a source, and an acceptable answer to record whether the passage came back. Hit rate, rank, and the groundedness calculation stay in that note. They are not recomputed here. An ordinary reply that never entered the question set still goes through the three fields and a signature. Using the last test's score in place of opening the passage this time is the same as not checking.
The approval record names the reply, the three fields, the approver, the date, and whether it was accepted or returned. A return quotes the sentence that did not match, or names which of the three fields was empty. After acceptance, the text that is sent carries the three fields. The path is not left in a remark only the approver can see. If a colleague cannot open the path when they forward it, that approval is withdrawn and the reply returns to draft.
A superseded version cannot be approved
If the version in the three fields is already marked superseded, the approver does not sign merely because the sentence is still in the old file. Where the current mark lives, and who may mark a file superseded, stays with the versioning practice. See How to manage document versions in a knowledge base. A close wording between the old file and the current file is still not a match to the current text.
A path that opens a different folder, or a file name that matches while the version mark is blank, is returned as well. Blank is not "current by default". The owner writes the mark on the store first, the reply is pointed at that mark, and approval is done again. If the two dates do not meet, the text that goes out can still carry the old sentence.
Leave the reply in draft until the three fields are filled
If the path, the version mark, or the section is blank, or the approver has not signed, the reply stays in draft and the status is written as awaiting a source. "The model has already answered" is not written as approved. Not found may be sent, and what is sent is not found plus the owner's name, not an explanation with no source. A conflict that has not been written as two sources is not sent either.
Prompt wording, a score threshold, and a ranking of model names stay in the company's own record and on the quote for this job, with a date. The page above does not name the three fields, and it does not declare one label fit for every knowledge base. Before a reply is sent, three things are on the record: the path, the version, and the section are all present, the approver has opened that section and signed, and a reply with no source sends only not found. The reply leaves draft when those three are written down.