What the documents look like
For product questions in Franchise fee settlement, this page examines FastGPT hybrid retrieval. Compare the material received with the sources used in the answer. The examples are hypothetical.
Constraints at the hybrid retrieval step
The franchise-fee example’s invoice attachment states that an invoice was issued. That written status is the reading target, without establishing actual payment or receipt of funds. Mark the original status wording, check candidates against the correct fee and rerank using the complete question. Invoices, ledgers and payment plans serve different purposes; a nearby settlement passage need not support invoicing. Preserve source identity and the scope of what the passage actually supports. Retain separate sources for invoicing wording and payment evidence, so a final summary does not compress “invoice issued” into “funds received.” Reranking checks retrieval and order; the action verb used in the answer still needs verification against the corresponding supporting record.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Item or implementation check | Input or applicable condition | Traceable check |
|---|---|---|
| Fused candidates | Invoice-issued wording in the attachment | Keep it separate from payment or receipt evidence. |
| Complete question | Party A in the invoice versus party B in the payment plan | Check identity and correspondence to the same fee. |
| Minimum relevance | Inspect filtering under semantic or reranking conditions | A high score cannot rewrite the payer in the original. |
| Citation token limit | Invoice status and source identity | Do not compress invoice issuance into received funds. |
| Missing-source retest | No receiving account in the available invoice | Obtain an authorized source without inferring an account from party names. |
Documented conditions
| Documented item / implementation check | Condition |
|---|---|
Hybrid retrieval | Vector and full-text results use RRF fusion. |
| Reranking | Reranking reorders candidates using the full question. |
Minimum relevance | Filtering applies to semantic search or reranking. |
Citation limit | Citation content is limited by tokens. |
Question optimization | Compare subjects and restrictions after optimization. |
Three common errors
Party A and party B are named as payer in the proposed invoice and contract payment plan respectively. Retain both identities. Inspect candidate completeness before checking whether the documents concern the same fee and applicable versions. A longer or higher-ranked contract passage cannot rewrite the invoice party. The difference can remain a review item; establishing the actual payer needs corresponding business evidence, beyond a reranking decision.
How to verify the setup
The available invoice attachment supplies no receiving-account information. The model should not fill it from party names or the title of a deposit ledger. Inspect candidates and final wording for an account borrowed from an unrelated source. Once the corresponding authorized material is obtained, repeat the question and trace the new citation. Candidate order does not establish an account’s authenticity, ownership or completed settlement; preserve those distinctions in the review record.
| Material context | Scope |
|---|---|
| Document types | Franchise Fee Invoice, Deposit Ledger, Deduction Notice and Contract Payment Plan |
| Candidate sources | Financial System, Franchise Contract, Bank Statement and Store Violation Records |
| Technical baseline | FastGPT v4.17.2 |