What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the academic journal business cooperation management scenario, with materials drawn from three categories: business cooperation agreements, advertising review forms, and distribution cooperation materials. Business cooperation agreements record the cooperating entities, terms, and revenue-sharing bases; advertising review forms carry advertising content, review conclusions, and signature fields; distribution cooperation materials register channels, quantities, dates, and receipts. The three categories of materials enter the knowledge base in batches, and the update cadence changes with agreement renewals, changes in review conclusions, and the collection of distribution receipts. Field characteristics center on names, quantities, dates, version numbers, and signature fields: the same record's name wording, quantity basis, and date timing often differ across materials; when versions are not synchronized, old drafts remain in the knowledge base; and scanned copies missing signatures or receipts are also ingested. When entering this feature, business cooperation agreements, advertising review forms, and distribution cooperation materials each participate in recall as candidate segment sources, with the retrieval node returning segments and scores, and acceptance records and follow-up questions to be completed are finished by subsequent nodes or manually based on these.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate segments and similarity scores (after mode, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming). Acceptance records and follow-up questions to be completed are then finished by subsequent nodes or manually. The retrieval service itself is only responsible for providing candidates and scores; it does not produce statistical tables, business documents, or authorization results.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Business cooperation agreement | Whether the name, quantity, date, and signature field match those in the advertising review form and distribution cooperation materials; whether the version number is synchronized | In the knowledge base search test, search using the same record's name and date, check the number of returned candidates and scores, and compare the signature field and version number item by item |
| Advertising review form | Whether the review conclusion date, advertising name, and quantity basis are consistent with the business cooperation agreement; whether receipts are complete | Switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, and hybrid and search once each, see whether candidates cover the review conclusion and signature field paragraphs, and record the number of candidates and scores |
| Distribution cooperation materials | Whether the distribution channel, quantity, date, and receipt signature are consistent with the business cooperation agreement; whether old versions are still in the knowledge base | Search using a combination of distribution channel and date, turn usingReRank on and off to compare the ranking of the top few results, and check the key original text segments retained after similarity filtering |
| Knowledge base retrieval service | Whether candidate segments and similarity scores are returned after mode, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming | In the search test, adjust similarity and limit, observe changes in the number of candidates and scores, and confirm that the tokens of the cited text and the number of array items are recorded separately |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same record's name, quantity, and date do not match between the business cooperation agreement and the distribution cooperation materials. Cause: The two materials are entered separately, no field-level comparison is performed, and each is recalled separately during retrieval.
- Symptom: The advertising review form has been updated, but the old version is still recalled. Cause: Versions are not synchronized, the old draft has not been removed, and candidate segments hit both the new and old versions.
- Symptom: There are many candidates, but the ones ranked at the top are all irrelevant, and the answer lacks key paragraphs. Cause: Rerank is not enabled or similarity filtering is too loose, and no secondary sorting is performed before the citation limit trimming.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: test once each with synonym-rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then turn rerank on and off to see the ranking of the top few results; at the same time switch searchMode and usingReRank, and record the number of candidates and scores.
Business test: ask a question missing key information and see whether it first asks a follow-up question before answering; if it answers directly, check whether it hit segments missing signatures or receipts.
- In the knowledge base search test, search once each using the same record's name, quantity, and date, check the number of returned candidates and scores, and compare the fields of the two materials item by item.
- Adjust
similarityandlimitto observe candidate trimming, confirm that the tokens of the cited text and the number of array items are recorded separately, then enableusingReRankto compare the ranking of the top few results.