What data looks like for this category
Data sources for multi-financial intelligent due diligence reports include regulatory agency public documents, industry association disclosure information, counterparty public financial reports, and financial product filing records, among others. Different data source types have different update frequencies: regulatory documents update monthly, financial reports update quarterly, and filing information syncs in real time. Most documents are structured PDFs or structured tables, containing fields such as subject qualifications, related transaction details, risk exposure statistics, and compliance penalty records. Units include ten thousand yuan, hundred million yuan, and specific date formats, among others.
What constraints these characteristics impose on the citation sources and traceability link
The multi-source, decentralized structure of multi-financial due diligence reports requires the citation traceability workflow to support cross-data source cross-validation, ensuring the authenticity of compliance records, related transactions, and other information. Differences in data source update rhythms require the traceability workflow to support flexible switching between incremental and full updates, avoiding the use of outdated referenced information. The complex field and unit system requires the recall workflow to accurately match professional terminology and unit formats, preventing confusion between the statistical scopes of different entities. The long document structure requires the traceability workflow to retain sufficient context information, ensuring the integrity and readability of cited content.
How to configure settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Recall Count | Top 10–15 entries | Multi-financial due diligence reports have many fields and scattered information, requiring coverage of sufficient compliance records and transaction details to avoid missing key information |
Similarity Threshold | 0.75–0.85 | Due diligence reports contain a large number of professional financial terms, requiring a balance between recall accuracy and coverage to avoid missing compliance-related keywords |
Rearranged Return Count | Top 5–8 entries | Due diligence report citations need to prioritize authoritative sources; rearranging can filter low-relevance documents and control per-round token consumption |
maxContext | 1200–1800 characters | Single-segment content of due diligence reports is lengthy, requiring sufficient context to fully display core information such as compliance records and transaction details |
Citation Source Display Fields | Publishing Entity, Publishing Date, Document Number | Multi-financial due diligence requires clear traceability basis; displaying metadata such as regulatory document numbers and filing numbers is needed to complete compliance verification |
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS | 300 seconds | Some due diligence reports are scanned documents or long documents, with long parsing times; extending the timeout can avoid parsing failures |
The parameter values provided on this page are conventional recommendations used as a starting point for configuration. Actual values are affected by material form, data volume, and business rules. Specific issues require specific analysis, and it is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three common configuration errors
- Setting
Recall Countto 2000 causes per-round answer token usage to far exceed system limits, leading to abnormal returns. The root cause is failing to account for the long document nature of due diligence reports, excessively expanding the recall scope, and not limiting per-round context capacity. - Configuring the prompt language to a non-Chinese format causes professional terms in due diligence reports to fail to be correctly recalled. The root cause is failing to adjust the prompt language for multi-financial professional documents and failing to match the language format of knowledge base documents.
- Failing to prioritize the top-ranked knowledge base result in responses. The root cause is not enabling the rearrangement function, or setting the
Similarity Thresholdtoo high, which filters out some eligible high-relevance documents.
How to confirm proper configuration
- Upload a sample document of a multi-financial due diligence report, check if the parsed fields include metadata such as publishing entity, publishing date, and document number, to confirm whether the
Citation Source Display Fieldsconfiguration is effective. - Initiate a query targeting the due diligence report, check the token consumption of the returned results, and adjust the values of
maxContextandRecall Countto balance context length and recall scope. - Check the citation source list of the returned results, confirm whether the required metadata fields are displayed, to verify whether the
Citation Source Display Fieldsconfiguration is correct. - Compare the recall results with the rearranged results, confirm whether the
Rearranged Return Countconfiguration limits the number of returned citations, to avoid excessive documents leading to excessive token usage.
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.