What the Data for This Category Looks Like
Jewelry investment research data primarily comes from brand product filing documents, industry association quality inspection reports, supply chain shipment ledgers, e-commerce platform SKU detail pages, and precious metal real-time quotation data sources. There are two update cycles: higher frequency during new product launch seasons, and daily or hourly updates for daily quotation data. Two types of document structures exist: structured parameter tables, and unstructured image-text detail pages and multi-page PDF quality inspection reports. Structured parameter tables include fields such as material type, purity value, gram weight, design patent number, with units mostly being grams, carats, percentage purity, and yuan per item.
Constraints for Citation Source and Traceability
The two types of data structures and multiple update cycles of jewelry data create multiple constraints during the citation and traceability process. Real-time quotation data must be tied to timestamps for traceability to avoid mixing data from different time periods. Precise matching of structured parameter tables relies on unique identifier fields such as SKU numbers and purity values to prevent incorrect association of content from different SKUs in the same category. Unstructured quality inspection reports must be bound to the unique identifier of the corresponding product to ensure that cited content matches the jewelry referenced in the query. Data sources with multiple update cycles require time-segmented recall windows to ensure that cited content matches the time range of current investment research needs. Additionally, jewelry subcategories have significant differences, so category tags must be filtered additionally during traceability to narrow the recall scope.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
recall count | top 8-12 entries | Jewelry investment research data includes multi-dimensional parameters such as material, quotation, and quality inspection. A sufficient recall volume is needed to cover core information and avoid missing key parameters |
similarity threshold | 0.75-0.85 | Jewelry parameters are mostly precise numerical values. A threshold that is too low will introduce irrelevant SKU data, while a threshold that is too high will fail to match associated content for similar designs or products of the same material |
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS | 600 seconds | Jewelry quality inspection reports are mostly multi-page PDFs containing high-resolution images and complex tables, with longer parsing time than general documents |
chunk length | 800-1200 characters | Jewelry product detail pages contain mixed image and text content. An overly long chunk will break the association between parameters and descriptions, while an overly short chunk will split complete quality inspection conclusions |
citation source display fields | SKU number, material purity, update time | Investment research personnel need to quickly verify the validity of cited content. Displaying core fields directly shows key parameters and timeliness |
knowledge base shard tags | by material type, update time | Jewelry has many subcategories. Sharding by tags can narrow the recall scope and improve traceability accuracy |
The parameter values provided on this page are common starting points for configuration. Actual values are affected by material form, data volume, and business rules. Specific issues require individual analysis, and testing on local samples before finalizing settings is recommended.
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Scenario: After publishing to an external channel, citation sources fail to display properly, but the function works during local testing. Cause: Batch replacement rules for
external citation source jump linksare not configured. The intranet domain name of the local environment cannot be accessed externally, resulting in invalid citation links. - Scenario: System logs show that the actual called model does not match the configured knowledge base optimization model, and citation results deviate from investment research needs. Cause: The specified re-ranking model is not bound in
knowledge base association configuration. The default called general model cannot adapt to the precise matching requirements of jewelry parameters, resulting in recalled content that is irrelevant to the query. - Scenario: The returned answer content does not associate with jewelry parameters in the knowledge base, but the citation source displays irrelevant quality inspection reports. Cause: Category-specific
similarity thresholdis not set. The general threshold incorrectly judges non-target SKU content as relevant, resulting in a disconnect between citations and the answer.
How to Verify Correct Configuration
- Upload a jewelry quality inspection report and SKU detail document to trigger a parsing task. Check the parsing log for elapsed time to confirm no timeout error corresponding to
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDSis triggered. - Submit an investment research query that includes jewelry material and quotation. Check the number and matching degree of recalled results to confirm that the
recall countandsimilarity thresholdconfigurations meet expectations. - Enter the test interface of the external channel, submit a query, and view the returned results. Confirm that the citation source display fields match the configured settings and that links are accessible normally.
- Enter the system log page, confirm that the actual called model matches the optimization model set in
knowledge base association configurationto verify correct model binding.
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.