A support conversation mentions both the warranty deadline for product A and the return deadline for product B. The user asks, "When does that end?" The conversation does not establish which deadline they mean.
The user wants the deadline for one of these targets. Access to both products is already authorized, and documents for both deadlines can be retrieved.
What should the application do first to answer with the single deadline the user intends?
Resolve omitted references from history when the target is clear. When multiple interpretations remain, clarify the target before retrieval. Document availability, authorization, and alignment with the user's intent are separate conditions.
Detailed explanation
Combining deadlines for different targets does not identify the one the user wants.
Broad retrieval can assist exploration, but merging different deadlines into one answer confuses their targets. More retrieved documents cannot substitute for identifying which target the user means.
The scenario explicitly leaves the reference unresolved, so mention order alone cannot establish the target.
The most recent topic can sometimes resolve a reference, but this scenario explicitly says it cannot. A general conversational clue should not be treated as an established user condition.
Clarifying the unresolved reference before forming the query avoids answering with correct information about the wrong target.
Ask a focused question such as, "Do you mean product A's warranty or product B's return deadline?" Use the clarified target in a complete retrieval query and answer from the resulting evidence.
A retrieval score measures document relevance to a query; it does not establish the user's unconfirmed intention.
Ranking results for an unresolved target does not show which product the user selected. Before assessing source accuracy, check that the retrieval target matches the intended question.
Check official documentation
Compare the following points with the official documentation.
Read AIF-C01 Task 3.2, Design a prompt, and Query a knowledge base and retrieve data. Compare a conversation with a clear reference against this unresolved one.
Official references
What to confirm
Explain why relevance scores and authorized access cannot establish the intended target, and why only the unresolved condition needs clarification.
Key points
- Resolve the target
- Relevance versus intent
- Focused clarification
Notes
- Environment: Reference-based review of current AIF-C01 and AWS documentation using invented conversations and configurations; no real user-data storage, AWS API calls, or model inference.
- Check the official guidance on reducing ambiguity and the roles of retrieved content and relevance. The clarification step is an application-design conclusion drawn from those roles.
- Do not require clarification when history already establishes one target. Compare invented conversations; do not run live retrieval or model inference.
Foundation review
Resolvable references and remaining ambiguity
When history clearly identifies the target, replace a pronoun with the product name. If history does not establish one target, asking a model to guess does not confirm the user's intention.
Document relevance differs from question intent
Retrieve results include source content and relevance scores. If the query targets the wrong product, even an accurate retrieved document may not answer the current question.
Clarify only the condition that matters
Here, briefly ask which product and deadline type the user means, then retrieve after receiving the answer. This does not require asking every question again when history already establishes its meaning.