What the documents look like
For product questions in Letter-of-credit documents, this page examines FastGPT retrieval. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the retrieval step
A new documentary product test can use an invoice statement: “Maintenance spare-parts kit; test tools excluded.” Retrieve the spare-parts subject and exclusion together, without turning a tool-term match into inclusion. Inspect literal spare-part and tool candidates, then compare the three modes for the full contents question. This reads document wording without deciding bank acceptance, rejection or documentary conformity.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Documented item or implementation check | Material and condition | Evidence action |
|---|---|---|
| Source scope (implementation check) | Invoice contents, broad description and list reference | The sources do not fill one another’s missing details. |
| Search modes: semantic, full-text, hybrid | Spare-part wording and the complete contents question | Inspect retrieval of the exclusion. |
| Citation token limit | Test tools excluded | Separate candidate omission from citation trimming. |
| Minimum relevance | Inspect filtering under semantic search or reranking | Scores do not establish documentary conformity. |
| Question optimization | Follow-up about tool scope | Do not turn an exclusion into an assumed list. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Associated knowledge bases | Knowledge bases associated with one search node must use the same embedding model. |
Search mode | Semantic, full-text and hybrid modes are available. |
Citation limit | Citation limits are measured in tokens. |
Minimum relevance | Range 0–1; active for semantic search or reranking. |
Question optimization | Resolves references and expands questions. |
Three common errors
A proposed insurance record broadly describes maintenance equipment, while a letter-of-credit note refers to a product-details list. An answer treating the broad equipment description as an itemized list exceeds its source scope; retain all three originals beside the actual citation. Token trimming may also remove the invoice exclusion. Trace the complete sentence to distinguish incomplete candidate coverage from a restriction lost during citation. Similar broad terms do not establish that the sources specify identical contents.
How to verify the setup
The details list and technical parameters were not supplied. Register the two gaps separately instead of deriving a model from maintenance use. For a follow-up about tools, inspect whether optimization changes an exclusion into a request assuming tools are present, preserving both question versions. After obtaining the corresponding sources, repeat the original question and trace new citations. Check minimum relevance under semantic or reranking conditions; scores and candidate counts cannot provide details absent from the documents.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Letter of Credit, Commercial Invoice, Bill of Lading, Insurance Policy and Bill of Exchange |
| Candidate sources | Issuing Bank Notice, UCP600 Clauses, Freight Forwarder Bill of Lading and Bank Document Submission Records |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |