What the data for this category looks like
Data sources for aerospace equipment intelligent due diligence reports include publicly available model establishment approval documents from aerospace industry competent authorities, technical bulletins released by development units, public analysis reports from third-party industry consulting institutions, and public launch mission briefings. Update cycles are adjusted according to model development progress. Data updates are triggered at milestones such as final assembly completion, successful testing, and annual industry summaries, with no fixed schedule. The document structure of a single report includes basic model information, subsystem performance parameters, full-process test records, supporting supply chain lists, and quality compliance records. Fields and units must comply with industry standards: power parameters use kilonewtons and tons, time parameters use days, hours, and seconds, mass parameters use kilograms and tons, and cost parameters use ten thousand yuan and hundred million yuan.
What constraints these characteristics impose on deployment and upgrade
Multiple heterogeneous data sources require configuring parsing engines adapted to different formats during deployment. Supported formats include structured tables, unstructured test reports, and documents with embedded charts. Non-fixed update cycles require supporting dynamically triggered incremental synchronization mechanisms during upgrade. This eliminates the need for full updates on fixed schedules. Large single report volume and rich field details require adjusting parsing-related parameters during deployment. This avoids timeouts or data truncation. Coexisting multiple units in fields require configuring unified unit conversion rules. This ensures parameter consistency during retrieval and matching.
How to set the configurations
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDS | 1200 seconds | Single aerospace equipment due diligence reports often reach tens of MB in size, containing a large number of test data charts. Conventional parsing durations are insufficient. 1200 seconds covers the complete parsing process. |
UPLOAD_FILE_MAX_SIZE | 2000 MB | A single complete due diligence report includes multiple attachments. Allowing a large upload volume adapts to full data import. |
maxContext | 8000–12000 characters | Aerospace parameter fields are numerous and detailed. Longer context retains complete parameter association information, avoiding truncation and loss of critical data. |
Recall count | Top 8 entries | Due diligence reports need to cover multi-dimensional parameters. Excessive recall increases inference latency. 8 entries balances recall coverage and response speed. |
SIMILARITY_THRESHOLD | 0.75–0.85 | Aerospace parameter fields have high precision requirements. A threshold that is too low introduces irrelevant matches, while a threshold that is too high omits relevant parameter entries. |
PARSE_CHUNK_SIZE | 1500–2000 characters | Parameter paragraphs in aerospace reports are relatively long. Appropriate chunk sizing retains parameter association logic, avoiding splitting that destroys field integrity. |
The parameter values provided on this page are common starting points for configuration setup. Actual values are affected by material format, data volume, and business rules. Specific scenarios require individual analysis, and it is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three common mistakes
- Phenomenon: All model calls return 504 timeout errors after container startup. Cause: The
PARSE_FILE_TIMEOUT_SECONDSparameter was not adjusted. The parsing duration of large aerospace documents exceeds the default timeout limit of the container. - Phenomenon: Some parameter fields are empty after importing due diligence reports. Cause: A reasonable threshold for
SIMILARITY_THRESHOLDwas not configured. A low threshold will match irrelevant passages, leading to core parameters being filtered out. - Phenomenon: Team members cannot access the deployed due diligence application. Cause: Team permission items were not configured correctly, and application permissions were not assigned to the corresponding team groups.
How to confirm successful configuration
- Upload a standard aerospace equipment due diligence report, check if the parsed text contains all core parameter fields, and verify the field matching rate between the parsed result and the original document.
- Submit a due diligence report retrieval request, check the number of returned results and similarity matching rate, adjust corresponding configuration items until they meet business requirements.
- Create a test team account, attempt to access the deployed application, confirm that the permission configuration takes effect, and ensure team members can normally call functions.
- Restart the deployment service, verify that configuration modifications take effect, and confirm there are no startup errors or parameter loading failure prompts.
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.