What the documents look like
Creator sales campaigns depend on external creator fulfillment and commission settlement rather than internal brand scheduling. The working materials are creator cooperation agreements, commission setup sheets, sample shipment sheets and livestream performance reports. Each type carries a different responsibility in product material and selection question answering. A cooperation agreement records the parties and the boundary of authorization. A commission setup sheet records rates and settlement definitions. A sample shipment sheet corresponds to physical handover. A livestream performance report reflects the results of one session. These materials update per session and per week, and whether an update has entered a searchable state needs separate verification after upload.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Chunking must preserve document identity and version so that a fragment can be traced back to its source. Conditional clauses, applicable scope and the provisions they constrain should not be split into different data groups. Original data and retrieval indexes form two layers, and one group of original data can correspond to multiple indexes. Deleting or replacing an index does not change the content of the original data. Retrieval does not perform authorization judgment: recalling a fragment of an agreement does not mean the subject has obtained authorization or that the contract has taken effect.
Hypothetical drill sample: the source material reads, "Party A commissions Party B to execute a creator livestream from March 1, 2025 to March 31, 2025, with commission settled at fifteen percent of the actual transaction amount in the livestream room. This agreement takes effect from the date both parties sign and seal it." A draft sentence awaiting judgment reads, "Party B obtained commission settlement authorization for this livestream on March 1, 2025." The source only provides the commissioned period and the rate, and does not state whether signing and sealing have been completed, so the authorization status in the draft sentence remains to be verified.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Check item | Relation to this page's materials | Hypothetical starting point and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Agreement clauses contain precise expressions such as parties and periods, suitable for full-text retrieval | Start with hybrid retrieval and compare matched fragments against semantic retrieval alone |
| Reference limit | Performance reports and commission sheets differ greatly in fragment length | Set a starting size covering one complete clause and compare against a shorter limit for truncated conditional clauses |
| Minimum relevance | Takes effect only in semantic retrieval or with result reranking | Start at a middle value and compare against a lower value for an increase in unrelated fragments |
| Question optimization | Coreference such as "this agreement" is easily lost in follow-up turns | Start enabled and compare follow-up hit situations against disabled |
| Image index | Sample shipment sheets may contain images, requiring an index built at ingestion | Verify whether a vision model or an image-supporting vector model is configured |
| Post-update review | Materials update per session and per week | After upload, verify actual training and index status separately from upload success |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization confirmation. Entering "Party B commission authorization" can recall an agreement fragment, and the comparison is textual similarity. Whether authorization holds still depends on the fact of signing and sealing, and retrieval does not produce that conclusion.
- Treating upload success as an updated index. Entering an updated commission setup sheet compares the upload record with the training status. When the two are inconsistent, retrieval still returns the old fragment.
- Associating libraries of different vector models together. Check each library identifier and vector model identifier, exclude those that do not match, and do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
How to verify the setup
- Enter the hypothetical sample source text and the draft sentence, and compare the authorization wording in the draft sentence against the commissioned period and rate stated in the source. When the source does not state the signing and sealing status, the judgment is pending verification.
- Enter "March 2025 commission rate" as full-text retrieval, and compare whether the returned fragment completely contains the rate and the applicable period. A conditional clause split apart does not satisfy this.
- Enter an empty query, check how the downstream design handles an empty reference, and observe whether the returned content matches the design expectation, without presuming that an empty query must return an empty result.