What the documents look like
Ordinary platform refunds arise order by order, and they are not necessarily tied to a promise made in a single livestream session. Four document types therefore accumulate continuously: refund applications, return logistics notes, quality-inspection photos, and refund approvals. They concern the same after-sales event, but each carries different information. A refund application records the consumer's claim and the order identifier. A return logistics note records the in-transit state of the returned item. A quality-inspection photo records the condition of the goods when the warehouse receives them. A refund approval records the amount and the handling conclusion.
The chunking task is to cut these materials into passages that can be retrieved and traced back to the source text, so that product-material and selection questions can locate a specific order, a specific stage, and a specific field. Because materials update with each order, index state has to correspond to material version. A successful upload does not by itself mean retrieval has already been updated.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Refund materials frequently appear as conditional sentences and stage descriptions, for example "if inspection finds the item unfit for resale, reject the request" or "after the returned parcel is signed for, the case enters approval." If chunking separates a condition from the conclusion it governs, the retrieved passage loses the premise for the judgment. One order may simultaneously have a refund application, a logistics note, inspection photos, and an approval record. These are multiple sides of the same group of source data, so the document identity and version that allow tracing back must be preserved, and materials from different orders must not mix.
Hypothetical exercise sample: the source text reads, "Order A-4821. The refund application states the item is a vacuum flask, quantity 1, application date 5 March 2024, reason: the sealing ring of the lid is damaged. The return logistics note states the warehouse signed for the parcel on 7 March 2024. The quality-inspection photo caption states the flask body has scratches and the sealing ring is intact." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "Quality inspection for order A-4821 confirms the sealing ring is damaged, refund approved." The check compares the draft sentence with the inspection photo caption. The caption states the sealing ring is intact; the draft sentence states the sealing ring is damaged. The same field carries mutually exclusive values, so the draft sentence is not supported. The reason recorded in the refund application is a consumer claim and cannot be treated directly as an inspection conclusion. Approval status, whether any refund was executed, and the authorization boundary are not stated in the sample and remain to be verified.
Configuration and implementation checks
The following items concern this page's sample. They list documented settings or implementation checks only. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Hybrid search | The sample contains order number A-4821 and a natural-language reason, so exact number matching and semantically similar content both matter; compare returned passages against semantic search alone and full-text search alone |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point 0.3 | Used to filter low-relevance passages; compare returned passages at 0.2 and 0.4 and observe whether unrelated passages decrease |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point 2000 tokens | Controls the length of cited content per search; compare with 1000 and 3000 tokens and observe whether conditions and conclusions are truncated |
| Question optimization | Enabled for this exercise | The sample may involve follow-up questions; used for coreference resolution and question expansion; compare returned passages for the same question with the setting off |
| Result reranking | Enabled for this exercise | Performs a second ordering of text when candidate passages are numerous; compare ordering for the same question with the setting off |
| Index check | Check the indexes field of dataset.datas | Confirm whether the vector IDs corresponding to this group of source data include the present materials; check separately from training completion state |
Three common errors
- Treating a consumer's stated reason as an inspection conclusion. In the sample, the refund application says the sealing ring is damaged, while the inspection photo caption says the sealing ring is intact. Same subject, same field, same period, mutually exclusive values. If chunking causes only the refund application passage to be recalled, the retrieval result lacks the inspection caption, and the draft sentence conflicts with the source text.
- Treating a successful upload as an updated index. Material upload, training completion, and index generation are distinct states. If only the upload record is checked in the sample and the indexes field of dataset.datas is not, it cannot be confirmed whether the inspection photo caption has entered the retrievable range.
- Treating retrieval as authorized execution. Recalling a refund application or approval passage only means the content can be retrieved. It does not mean the refund was approved or executed. The sample does not state approval status or any refund action, so "refund approved" in the draft sentence is an unsupported conclusion.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence, and compare the field value in the draft sentence with the inspection photo caption. When the same order and the same field carry mutually exclusive values, judge the draft sentence unsupported and record the conflict. The expected result is identifying the contradiction between "sealing ring intact" and "sealing ring damaged." No claim is made that this was actually tested.
- Input order number A-4821 and the natural-language question "what is the inspection conclusion for this refund," and compare whether the returned passages include both the refund application and the inspection photo caption. The condition is met when returned passages cover both sources and can be traced back to the source text. If only the refund application is returned, record the recall gap.
- Input an empty citation list [] and check how the downstream design handles an empty result. The condition is met when an empty result is not treated as no refund or as a rejection. If the downstream interprets an empty result as a negative conclusion, record that design gap. An empty retrieval result only means nothing was recalled this time; it does not mean the fact does not exist.