What the data for this category looks like
Engineering consulting intelligent due diligence report data mainly comes from project feasibility study documents, construction design drawings, bill of quantities, site survey records, industry quota standards, and compliance documents. Data update rhythm is dynamically adjusted with project progress. Updates are synchronized when supplementary requests are made or project parameters change. Most documents are split by project phase, including modules such as project overview, bill of quantities details, material unit price list, and compliance review clauses. Fields include project number, unit cost, compliance item number, and quantity value. Most units use engineering-specific measurement standards such as yuan/㎡, cubic meters, and ten thousand yuan.
What constraints these characteristics impose on the multi-turn dialogue and prompt engineering link
The long-text attribute of engineering consulting due diligence data requires multi-turn dialogue to retain sufficient context. This avoids losing field association relationships after splitting. Multiple fields and exclusive measurement units require prompts to clearly define field mapping rules. This prevents the model from confusing general terms and project-specific parameters. Frequently updated data requires prompts to be synchronized with the latest quota standards and compliance clauses. Dialogue history must retain project-specific identifiers. This ensures subsequent questions can associate historical data of the corresponding project. In addition, compliance reviews require multi-round confirmation. The system must retain the status of each round of review. This avoids repeating the same questions.
How to set the configurations
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value Range | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
maxContext | 8000–12000 characters | Engineering consulting due diligence reports include long-text bills of quantities and compliance clauses. Sufficient context is needed to retain associated fields and historical dialogue |
recallTopK | Top 6–8 entries | Due diligence data has many tightly associated fields. Sufficient recalled related entries are needed to avoid missing key parameters |
similarityThreshold | 0.75–0.85 | Distinguish project-specific quotas from general standards. This avoids matching cost data from unrelated industries |
conversationHistoryMaxCount | Last 10–15 rounds | Due diligence processes require repeated confirmation of compliance items and quantities. Recent dialogue must be retained to ensure coherent context |
systemPrompt | Bind project-specific templates | Engineering consulting due diligence requires clear field mapping rules. Prompts must bind project-specific fields such as project number and unit cost |
fileChunkSize | 1500–2000 characters | Split engineering drawings and bill of quantities text. Avoid excessively long single chunks that cause model misunderstanding |
The parameter values provided on this page are common 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.
Three common mistakes
- Phenomenon: After multiple due diligence dialogues are initiated, the model's returned results do not follow the project-specific prompt requirements. Cause: The trigger logic for
systemPromptwas not correctly configured in the V4.9.13 version's dialogue node, resulting in reuse of the general prompt template. - Phenomenon: When calling the "Get Dialogue Record List" interface, adjusting the offset parameter causes the returned record order or quantity to not meet expectations. Cause: The offset was not clearly defined as the number of returned records skipped, and the parameter was set directly based on the number of entries displayed on the page, resulting in data misalignment.
- Phenomenon: Shared applications allow cross-user access to private due diligence dialogues. Cause: User identity binding configuration for session data was not enabled, causing different visitors to share the same session storage.
How to confirm the configuration is set correctly
- Upload a bill of quantities file for an engineering consulting project, initiate multi-turn dialogue to verify that the model can associate the previously mentioned project number and material unit price.
- Call the "Get Dialogue Record List" interface, adjust the offset parameter, and check that the returned record count matches the number of skipped entries.
- Share the application and access it with different test accounts, confirming that only the due diligence dialogues initiated by the user themselves can be viewed.
- Upload a large construction drawing file, verify that the parsing process does not trigger a timeout error, and confirm that the configured timeout parameters take effect.
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.