What the data for this category looks like
The data for automated equipment intelligent due diligence reports comes from four main sources: equipment manufacturer factory parameter documents, annual operation and maintenance summary records, third-party compliance inspection reports, and on-site installation and commissioning logs. Data update cycles align with manufacturer parameter adjustments, annual compliance reviews, or on-site operation and maintenance record archiving. Core parameter documents are usually static archived versions, while operation and maintenance logs are added in real time per operation nodes. Document structures typically include equipment basic information sections, structured technical parameter tables, time-sequenced operation and maintenance records, troubleshooting manuals, and compliance certification attachments. Fields include equipment serial numbers, production batches, rated power (unit: kW), operating speed (unit: rpm), total weight (unit: kg), and some documents also include custom equipment point numbers and communication protocol parameters.
What constraints these characteristics impose on the "document parsing and chunking" link
Structured technical parameter tables require the parsing process to retain row and column structures. Do not split table content into scattered paragraphs, as this will break the corresponding relationship between equipment parameters. Time-sequenced operation and maintenance logs must retain chunks in their original operation order. Disrupting chronological logic will prevent subsequent due diligence analysis from associating faults with operation nodes. Proprietary technical terms and parameter fields with units must stay fully bound. Splitting parameters from their units, or incorrectly splitting abbreviated terms, will cause parameter recognition failures. Multi-attachment combined documents for large equipment must support batch parsing and chunk association. This avoids chunks of individual attachments being disconnected from the main document. Repeated standardized parameter fragments must retain their original chunk order. Do not automatically filter these fragments, as this will disrupt the original logic of the due diligence report.
How to set the configurations
| Configuration Item | Recommended Setting | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
PARSE_TABLE_ENABLE | Enabled | Automated equipment due diligence reports contain many structured technical parameter tables. Enabling this option retains table row and column structures, and avoids chaotic splitting of parameter information |
CHUNK_SIZE | 800–1200 characters | Equipment documents include long-text technical descriptions and operation and maintenance log fragments. This length balances term integrity and chunk density |
CHUNK_OVERLAP | 100–150 characters | Time-sequenced operation and maintenance logs need retained contextual cohesion, to avoid key operation steps being truncated during chunking |
PARSE_SPECIAL_TERM | Load via custom dictionary | Automated equipment has many proprietary abbreviations (such as PLC, HMI). This setting prevents incorrect term splitting |
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS | 300 seconds | Full due diligence documents for large equipment include multiple attachments. This duration covers the complete parsing process |
ENABLE_DOC_REPEAT_CHECK | Disabled | Repeated parameter records for some equipment need retention of their original chunk order, to avoid index misalignment |
The parameter values provided on this page are all 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. It is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: After custom chunking, the knowledge base automatically deletes duplicate document chunks, causing the preset index order to not match the actual stored content. Cause: The
ENABLE_DOC_REPEAT_CHECKconfiguration was not disabled. The system filters duplicate text fragments by default. - Phenomenon: Parsed technical parameter tables only return plain text rows, and cannot retain row and column structures. Cause: The
PARSE_TABLE_ENABLEconfiguration was not enabled, or table parsing retention rules were not specified. - Phenomenon: After submitting a document parsing task via API, real-time parsing status (such as parsing in progress, ready, parsing failed) cannot be obtained. Cause: The corresponding status query interface was not called, or callback notification parameters were not configured.
How to confirm the configuration is correct
- Upload a single equipment parameter table document, check whether the table structure in the parsing result is complete, and confirm that the
PARSE_TABLE_ENABLEconfiguration is effective. - Import a test document containing repeated parameters, check whether all original chunks are retained in the knowledge base, and confirm that the
ENABLE_DOC_REPEAT_CHECKconfiguration meets requirements. - Submit a parsing task via API, query the task status through the specified interface, and confirm that the parsing status can be returned normally.
- Extract chunk content, check whether proprietary terms are correctly retained and not incorrectly split, and confirm that the
PARSE_SPECIAL_TERMconfiguration is effective.
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.