What the Data for This Category Looks Like
The data for game intelligence due diligence reports primarily comes from official version number filing documents issued by the National Press and Publication Administration, public operational disclosures from game developers, and compliant filing and operational data from third-party game monitoring platforms. Data update cycles adjust based on version number approval cycles and vendor financial report release dates, with no fixed high-frequency update schedule. A single report document typically includes fields such as version number, developer, launch date, core gameplay description, revenue composition, and compliant filing items. Most fields are string or numeric types, with units including version number, ten thousand yuan, and person-times.
What Constraints Do These Characteristics Impose on the "Cited Sources and Traceability" Link
Official filing data for game intelligence due diligence reports must accurately match unique identifiers such as version numbers to avoid confusion with filing documents from other categories. The update cycle of third-party operational data is tied to vendor financial report dates. When tracing data, the data collection time and source platform must be marked simultaneously. Revenue and compliant filing fields in reports are unique to this category. Their specific meanings must be clearly stated during traceability to avoid generalized citations. Additionally, single report documents are usually lengthy. Cited fragments must be accurately positioned to the paragraphs corresponding to specific fields to avoid cutting irrelevant content that undermines the accuracy of due diligence conclusions.
Configuration Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
Recall Count | Top 10-15 entries | Game due diligence report documents are lengthy, so this range covers relevant fragments across multiple fields and avoids missing core traceability fields such as version numbers and revenue |
Similarity Threshold | 0.75-0.85 | Most game data fields require precise matching. A threshold that is too low will introduce irrelevant industry-wide documents, while a threshold that is too high may miss niche data disclosed by vendors |
Reranked Return Count | Top 5-8 entries | Core official filing and core operational data must be retained, to avoid filtering out key compliant items after reranking |
Segment Length | 800-1200 characters | Field descriptions in game reports are lengthy. Too short a segment will split complete paragraphs such as compliant clauses and revenue composition, while too long a segment will reduce retrieval accuracy |
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS | 600 seconds | Single game due diligence report documents have large file sizes and long parsing times. Extending the timeout prevents parsing failures |
Citation Template | Format: "Source Document Name + Version Number/Collection Time + Fragment Content" | Traceability for game reports requires clear marking of version numbers or collection times to facilitate verification of consistency between official filing and third-party data |
The parameter values provided on this page are common starting points for configuration. Actual values are affected by material format, data volume, and business rules. Specific issues require individual analysis. It is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three Common Mistakes
- Symptom: Empty cited fragments after enabling reranking, with the system returning empty search results or a 400 status code. Cause: The reranked return count is set too low, and the similarity threshold is set too high, filtering out only partially matching compliant filing fragments in game reports.
- Symptom: Timeout error triggered during parsing, with the
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUTfield shown in logs. Cause: ThePARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDSparameter is not adjusted, and the default 300-second timeout is used, which cannot complete parsing of long documents. - Symptom: Unable to customize citation templates in the open-source version V4.8.22, resulting in traceability information not including unique identifiers such as version numbers. Cause: The AI advanced configuration in this version only allows adjustment of basic parameters, and the custom citation template function is not available. Upgrade the version or adjust the template through code.
How to Confirm Proper Configuration
- Upload a single game due diligence report document, and check if retrieved result fragments include unique fields such as version numbers and revenue composition.
- Check system operation logs to confirm that no timeout errors are triggered during parsing.
- After generating a complete due diligence report, verify that each cited source is marked with the document name, version number, or collection time.
- Adjust the similarity threshold and reranked return count, and verify that the number of search results changes in line with the configured settings.
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.