What the documents look like
Settlement and foreign-exchange work concerns the collection of funds from orders that have already been completed. Fraud and chargeback handling sit outside this category. The material set is dominated by platform settlement statements, exchange-rate tables, service-fee invoices, and receipt reconciliation sheets. These arrive from platform settlement centers, bank transaction records, payment-institution back offices, and ERP order data.
A single settlement statement frequently carries an order number, deduction items, currency, exchange rate, service fee, and credited amount on the same business line. Identifiers and natural-language notes are mixed within one file. Finance staff match settlement statements against reconciliation sheets line by line, on a weekly or monthly cadence, checking exchange-rate differences and the aggregation of service fees. These characteristics mean a parsed result must be traceable back to a specific line and field in the source. When chunking separates a deduction condition from the amount it governs, later question answering cannot produce an answer that a reviewer can check against the original.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Chunking follows the structure of the material itself. On a settlement statement, the order number, currency, exchange rate, and handling fee belong to one business line; a condition statement and the amount it constrains should not be split across separate data blocks. One set of source data can map to multiple vector indexes, and a long text can yield several index groups to improve hit rates, though a shorter index narrows retrieval scope. Exact queries such as identifiers and model numbers rely on full-text retrieval, while natural-language questions rely on semantic retrieval. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF, and a rerank model produces a relevance score between 0 and 1. The minimum relevance value takes effect only under semantic retrieval or result reranking; it is a filter threshold and does not perform permission or entity isolation. The reference limit is controlled in tokens, which differs from top k.
Hypothetical walkthrough sample: a cross-border seller's finance staff member receives a platform settlement statement in March 2025. The source text reads: "Settlement period 2025-03-01 to 2025-03-31; Order A, currency USD, settlement amount 1000.00, platform handling fee 15.00, exchange rate 7.10, credited amount 6993.50 CNY." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "This order has completed RMB crediting, and no further exchange-rate difference check is needed." The comparison checks whether the source states a crediting-completion status and a conclusion on exchange-rate difference handling. The source gives only the exchange-rate figure and the credited amount, and does not state crediting status, so the draft sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists only settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature and this task. The values are starting points for this hypothetical trial, used to illustrate the comparison method, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this trial | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Settlement statements contain both order identifiers and natural-language notes, so both query types need coverage |
| Minimum relevance | 0.3 | Starting point to observe whether key settlement lines remain after filtering, compared with 0.5 |
| Reference limit | 3000 tokens | Settlement passages are long; starting point to observe whether deduction conditions are truncated, compared with 2000 |
| Question optimization | Enabled | Completes references during follow-up questions about the settlement period, compared with disabled |
| Result reranking | Enabled | Secondary ordering when candidates are numerous, compared with vector scores alone |
| Chunk review | Manual line-by-line check | Verifies whether order numbers and amounts remain in the same data block |
Three common errors
- Treating a successful upload as an updated retrieval index. After material changes, the actual training and index state must be checked; the upload action itself does not alter an existing index.
- Using minimum relevance as a permission filter. This value only filters low-relevance results and cannot exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records; retrieval is not authorization.
- Describing RRF after hybrid retrieval as a toggle. RRF is a multi-path result merging process, not a selectable option, and reranking additionally requires a model and must be enabled according to settings.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the hypothetical sample source text and the draft sentence, compare whether the source states a crediting-completion status, and observe whether the draft sentence is marked unsupported. If the source contains an explicit crediting field, this judgment must be redone.
- Search with order number A and with the natural-language question "what is the March handling fee," compare whether both paths recall the same settlement data block, and observe whether the identifier query hits and whether the semantic query returns the deduction line. If the identifier query does not hit, check whether full-text retrieval is enabled.
- Use an empty reference input [] to check the downstream design, compare whether the downstream handles it as an empty result, and observe whether unsupported completion occurs. This check does not claim that any rule-based retrieval necessarily returns empty.
This page addresses only cross-border platform settlement and foreign exchange / product material and selection question answering / document parsing and chunking. At operational handover, the authorization state of materials, actions, and requests must be distinguished; retrieval and forms are not authorization to execute.