What the documents look like
Closure settlement handles exit and asset recovery, the reverse direction from site selection and store opening. The primary records come from POS inventory, the fixed-asset system, lease contracts and financial ledgers. Day-to-day documents include closure approvals, inventory clearance forms, lease termination agreements and asset count sheets. These materials are produced per store and per event, and updates are irregular. Document parsing and chunking must handle several materials for the same store during its exit stage: an approval file carries a signature status, a clearance form carries quantities and a handler, a termination agreement carries effective conditions, and a count sheet carries physical discrepancies. Chunking must preserve the subject, store, date, quantity and status, and must not separate a condition statement from the clause it constrains. Retrieval is used to locate document content and does not constitute authorization for lease exit, refund or asset disposal.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Source structures differ widely, so chunking follows each structure. One set of original data can map to multiple indexes, and original data must be distinguished from retrieval indexes. Terminology, identifiers and natural-language phrasing will hit different chunks and should be observed separately. After a document changes, the actual training and index state must be checked; a successful upload does not mean retrieval has updated.
Hypothetical drill sample: a chain-brand operations staff member prepares a handover note to check the following materials. Material one, original text: "Store A closure approval form, applicant Li, submitted 10 March 2025, status pending regional manager review." Material two, original text: "Store A inventory clearance form, handler Wang, recorded 12 March 2025, cleared 12 shelving units, status draft." Material three, original text: "Store A lease termination agreement, lessor and lessee have signed, handover of premises agreed for 30 April 2025, deposit refund conditional on completion of handover acceptance." Proposed determination sentence: "Store A closure approval has passed, inventory clearance is complete, and the deposit will be refunded automatically after handover of the premises." This sentence conflicts with the pending-review status in material one, the draft status in material two, and the deposit condition in material three, and is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below addresses the sample above and lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this feature. Numeric entries are hypothetical starting points for this exercise, with the reason for choosing them and the comparison object stated.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Hybrid search | The sample contains identifiers and natural language; semantic and full-text each recall candidates, then RRF fuses them to compare hit chunks |
| Minimum relevance | 0.5 | Hypothetical starting point to filter low-relevance chunks; compare recalled count against no threshold to observe unrelated fragments |
| Reference limit | 2000 tokens | Hypothetical starting point controlling reference volume by tokens; compare against 1000 tokens to see whether truncated clauses remain complete |
| Question optimization | Enabled | The sample question contains a reference; compare retrieval differences between the completed result and the original question |
| Result reranking | ReRank enabled | Secondary ranking when candidates are numerous; compare the rank position of the same chunk before and after reranking |
| Chunk checking | Manual chunk-by-chunk review | Check whether approval status, clearance status and deposit condition match the original text, and record gaps |
Three common errors
- Reading material one's "pending regional manager review" as approval passed. Input is the original text of material one; compare "pending review" with "passed"; observe whether the proposed determination sentence matches the original status field; a mismatch means it is unsupported.
- Reading material two's "draft" as clearance complete. Input is the original text of material two; compare "draft" with "complete"; observe whether a signature or confirmation record exists; when missing, keep it pending verification.
- Reading material three's "deposit refund conditional on completion of handover acceptance" as automatic refund. Input is the original text of material three; compare the condition clause with the "automatic refund" wording; observe whether a handover acceptance record exists; with no record, draw no conclusion.
How to verify the setup
- Input the original text of material one and the proposed determination sentence, compare "pending review" with "passed", and observe whether the retrieved chunk retains the status field; if the returned chunk loses the status or the proposed sentence is judged supported, the setup does not satisfy the condition.
- Input the original text of material two and the proposed determination sentence, compare "draft" with "complete", and observe whether the returned chunk contains the handler and date; if the returned content contains only quantity without status, manual reference back to the original text is required.
- Input the original text of material three and the proposed determination sentence, compare the deposit condition with "automatic refund", and observe whether the returned chunk fully retains the condition sentence; if the condition sentence is split apart, the chunking does not satisfy the condition. An empty result can be checked against a paper input of [] for downstream design, without claiming that a fictional rule must return []. Libraries across different vector models cannot be associated together; verify the identifier first and exclude those that do not match.