What the documents look like
Trade return and claim work follows goods after export, so the material set differs from ordinary export declaration. The working documents are the return agreement, the claim letter, the quality report and the return customs declaration. These arrive from customer email, inspection reports, customs systems and insurance claim systems, and they update irregularly, case by case. One shipment can carry an agreement text, a test conclusion and a declaration document at the same time.
For product questions and selection questions, the practical difficulty is that the return reason, the goods batch and the responsibility attribution sit in different documents. The public brief marks this category as broadly accurate rather than confirmed, so field-level detail depends on the actual file. Chunking has to keep a condition and the statement it constrains inside the same passage, otherwise retrieval returns a conclusion without the scope that limits it.
Constraints at the document chunking step
One group of source data can map to several indexes. When any one index is recalled, that group of data is recalled, and the vector score for the group takes the highest score among them. A passage that is too long dilutes its meaning; a passage that is too short loses the conditions attached to it. Semantic retrieval depends on vector distance and suits natural-language description. Full-text retrieval depends on keyword hits and suits numbers, model designations and proper nouns. Hybrid retrieval merges the two paths through RRF, and ReRank reorders candidate text and returns a score between 0 and 1. The minimum relevance value applies only under semantic retrieval or under result reordering. The citation limit controls how many tokens are cited per search.
A library is the smallest search unit, so a search runs across the whole library; collections only classify data and do not change search scope. Retrieval does not perform authorization checks, and the vector model requirement of a retrieval library does not extend to outside systems.
Hypothetical paper exercise
Text of the return agreement supplied for checking: "Party A submitted a return for batch A-202503 of 120 units on 10 March 2025; the return reason is moisture damage to outer packaging; Party B shall confirm responsibility attribution after receiving the agreement." Text of the quality report supplied for checking: "Batch A-202503: 20 units sampled, of which 5 units exceeded the moisture content limit for outer packaging; test date 12 March 2025." Draft sentence to be assessed: "Party B has confirmed that it bears full responsibility for this batch, and the claim amount has been verified."
Assessment points: the agreement text states only that Party B shall confirm responsibility attribution, and does not state that confirmation occurred. The quality report states only that moisture content exceeded the limit, and does not state responsibility attribution or a claim amount. The draft sentence lacks supporting evidence.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or check on this page | Relation to the exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Semantic retrieval, full-text retrieval or hybrid retrieval | Batch number A-202503 suits full-text retrieval; the return reason description suits semantic retrieval |
| Question optimization | Coreference resolution and question expansion before retrieval | Completes the referent when a follow-up asks about the responsible party for this batch |
| Minimum relevance | A value between 0 and 1, effective only under semantic retrieval or result reordering | Filters low-relevance fragments and keeps the agreement and report text |
| Citation limit | Each search cites at most n tokens | Controls the total agreement and report text returned to the model |
| Result reordering | A ReRank model is available and enabled by setting | Reorders agreement and report fragments when candidates are numerous |
| Segmentation check | Inspect passage completeness against document structure | Confirms the return reason and the responsibility clause are not split apart |
Three common errors
- Reading "Party B shall confirm responsibility attribution" in the agreement as a completed confirmation. Input: the agreement text and the draft sentence. Comparison: the state expressed by "shall confirm" against the state expressed by "has confirmed." Observable result: the draft sentence has no evidence that confirmation occurred.
- Treating the moisture content exceedance in the quality report as established responsibility attribution. Input: the quality report text and the draft sentence. Comparison: the test conclusion field against the responsibility attribution field. Observable result: the report records no responsible party.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization or as claim execution. Input: the agreement fragment returned by retrieval and the claim request. Comparison: the retrieval action against an approval action. Observable result: retrieval produces no authorization and no verified amount.
How to verify the setup
- Input the agreement text and the draft sentence. Compare "shall confirm responsibility attribution" against "has confirmed that it bears full responsibility." The check is satisfied only when the draft sentence is changed to a state description consistent with the source text.
- Input the quality report text and the claim amount request. Compare the report fields against the amount field. The check is satisfied only when the report states responsibility attribution and a basis for the amount; the current report states neither, so this is recorded as an evidence gap.
- Input batch number A-202503 for full-text retrieval and observe whether the returned fragments contain the agreement and report text. If the return is empty, record the actual observation and do not infer that the retrieval rule necessarily returns an empty array. A paper input of an empty list can be used to check downstream design, without asserting that a fictional rule returns an empty result.
Segmentation review stays tied to the named primary task: it inspects whether proposed copy sentences match the supplied source wording and its limits. It does not extend into identity certification, report analysis or unrelated tasks. Where the source text does not state a field, that field remains unknown, and where a request is pending, it is not an approval.