What This Category of Data Looks Like
Penalty case data primarily comes from official penalty decisions publicly released by regulatory authorities, compliance notices issued by industry self-regulatory organizations, and penalty execution records archived by internal corporate compliance departments. Updates follow no fixed schedule, and are synchronized whenever regulatory notices are released, internal compliance audits are completed, or penalty executions are finalized. Each individual document uses a fixed structure, including fields such as the full name of the penalty subject, detailed descriptions of violations, original text of regulatory basis clauses, penalty measures (including fine amounts and business restriction periods), rectification requirements and completion deadlines. Fine amounts are denominated in RMB yuan, and periods are measured in calendar days.
Constraints on Knowledge Base Retrieval and Recall
Official sources for penalty cases require retrieval results to match original text exactly, with no information deviations. This means retrieval matching must prioritize accuracy. No fixed update rhythm requires the knowledge base to support on-demand file synchronization, to prevent content from lagging behind latest regulatory requirements. Fixed document structure and multi-field attributes require chunking to retain the integrity of core fields such as penalty subjects, basis clauses, and penalty measures, to avoid losing critical associated information after splitting. The presence of numeric fields such as fine amounts and rectification deadlines requires retrieval to support precise matching of values and units, to avoid confusing penalty cases of different magnitudes.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Chunk Length | 800–1200 characters | Penalty cases include long texts of violation facts and regulatory basis clauses. Excessive length exceeds model window limits, while insufficient length breaks the association between clauses and penalty measures. 800–1200 characters balances completeness and window adaptability. |
Number of Retrieved Documents | Top 8–12 | Compliance retrieval needs to cover reference for similar penalties. Excessive quantity exceeds context limits, while insufficient quantity misses critical cases. 8–12 balances retrieval scope and context capacity. |
Similarity Threshold | 0.75–0.85 | Compliance boundaries for penalty cases require precise matching. A threshold that is too low introduces irrelevant cases, while a threshold that is too high misses similar penalty scenarios. 0.75–0.85 ensures relevance and retrieval completeness. |
PARSE_SEGMENT_OVERLAP | 15–20% | Penalty basis clauses and penalty measures have strong associations. 15–20% chunk overlap retains contextual connections between clauses and measures, avoiding logical breaks after splitting. |
maxContext | 3000–4000 characters | When the configured retrieval upper limit approaches 3000, adjust this parameter to avoid context overflow. 3000–4000 characters accommodates conventional retrieval volume and model input limits. |
Knowledge Base Retrieval-Only Mode | Enabled | Compliance Q&A must be strictly limited to penalty cases and internal regulations. Enabling this mode prohibits the model from calling external information, ensuring answer compliance. |
The parameter values provided on this page are common recommended starting points for configuration. Actual values are affected by material form, data volume and business rules. Specific issues require specific analysis. It is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Phenomenon: When
maxContextis set to 3000 characters and the number of retrieved documents exceeds 12, the system returns "context failed to load" or no valid answer. Cause: The total length of retrieved penalty case text exceeds the configured context upper limit, so the system cannot submit complete content to the large model. - Phenomenon: Chunked documents have penalty basis clauses and corresponding penalty measures split into different chunks. Cause: The value of
PARSE_SEGMENT_OVERLAPis lower than 10%, failing to retain critical associated information across chunks. - Phenomenon: Retrieval results mix internal regulation documents unrelated to penalty cases, or fail to retrieve similar violation penalty cases. Cause: The
Similarity Thresholdsetting does not match the current scenario. A value that is too high misses similar penalty scenarios, while a value that is too low introduces irrelevant content.
How to Verify Correct Configuration
- Upload a single penalty decision document, check that chunked segments retain the association between penalty basis and penalty measures, with no logically forced splits or breaks.
- Launch a retrieval test, enter keywords for a type of violation, confirm that the number of retrieved results falls within the configured retrieval range, and that similarity meets expectations.
- Check that the knowledge base retrieval-only mode is enabled, confirm that the model cannot call external information, and that answers are based solely on uploaded penalty cases and compliance documents.
- Adjust the
maxContextparameter to approach 3000 characters, verify that the total length of retrieved text does not exceed this upper limit, and that no context overflow prompts appear.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-14.