What should the answer be when sources conflict or evidence is missing?
Review note: The answer refers to the original author's CV or target job offer — adapt it to your own experience.
Answer out loud or in your head first, then compare.
Answer
The system should be able to say there are no grounds for a decision. Lack of confirmation doesn't automatically mean something is false. If sources differ, I point out the conflict and the rules for choosing, e.g. the current approved policy outweighs an old draft.
I don't pick a document just because it has the highest similarity score. I check the version, date and the source's standing in the organisation. For a user without access, I must not accidentally reveal even the existence of confidential material. So in tests I also need questions with no correct answer, old versions and conflicting data. A refusal can be the correct result, if it's to the point and not too frequent.
Why it matters: Important both in RAG and in checking claims from the CV.
Possible follow-ups: How do you judge whether the system refuses rightly, and not just too often?
How did it go? Be honest — “Not yet” puts the question on your review list.
Start with
- G-P01 · What is RAG? — RAG and retrieval
- G-P02 · What are embeddings? — RAG and retrieval
Further reading
- OWASP: LLM Prompt Injection Prevention Cheat Sheet(opens in a new tab)Docs; accessed 22.10.2026. Threat model, untrusted content, tool control and defence in depth.