What the documents look like
Cross-border platform settlement and exchange revolves around fund collection for orders that have already been transacted. The working materials are platform settlement statements, exchange rate tables, service fee invoices and receipt reconciliation tables. Their subject, period, currency and amount fields are each independent, and retrieval input arrives mainly as natural-language questions mixed with precise identifiers such as settlement numbers and invoice numbers. The stated update frequency is weekly or monthly, and the retrieval step operates on the data currently present; that frequency does not by itself change the recall scope. Data sources include the platform settlement center, bank statements, payment institution back office and ERP orders, and one settlement may sit at different stages across those sources. The people involved are cross-border seller finance staff, tax accountants and platform operations, and retrieval results support material checking in order fulfillment and after-sales question answering. Retrieval itself is not authorization, approval or a fund operation.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together; the vector model identifier is checked first, non-matching bases are excluded, and the actual observation is recorded. A cross-model retrieval is not run to compare missed recall.
Search modes include semantic retrieval, full-text retrieval and hybrid retrieval, and they are compared per test question rather than assumed to suit all materials. Hybrid retrieval merges multiple result paths through RRF; RRF is a fusion process, not a separate switch that can be turned on. ReRank requires a rerank model and must be enabled according to the setting. Image retrieval requires a corresponding image input and model capability. The optional paths listed in the overall flow do not mean every request executes all of them.
The citation limit is measured in tokens; it is tested with actual materials of differing length to see whether content stays complete, and then adjusted. The minimum relevance value takes effect only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used, and relevant and irrelevant samples are labeled before the threshold is adjusted. That threshold is a filter condition and does not perform permission or entity isolation. Question optimization is used for coreference resolution and question expansion; the original question and the optimized question are compared to check whether the subject was altered. Citation content is output as an array whose length can be 0, and the empty-result path still completes. Retrieval is a recall action, not an authorization action; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
Configuration and implementation checks
The following configuration is built around a hypothetical drill sample. Sample material text (hypothetical): a cross-border seller finance staff member records in the March 2025 settlement statement that "Order A-1001 settlement amount USD 1,200, service fee USD 36, settlement date 2025-03-15"; the same month's exchange rate table records "2025-03-15 USD to CNY central parity 7.10"; the receipt reconciliation table records "2025-03-18 received CNY 8,520, status is pending verification". Draft sentence to be judged (hypothetical): "Order A-1001 completed settlement and arrived on 2025-03-15." Handover request (hypothetical): mark this order as "reconciliation complete".
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Settlement statement base and exchange rate table base, with matching vector model identifiers verified | Both bases contain this sample material; identifiers are checked first and non-matching vector models excluded |
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | The sample contains an order number and a service fee description, so semantic and full-text recall paths are compared |
| Citation limit | Starting point set to 800 tokens | A complete passage containing settlement number, amount and status is used as reference, and the truncation position is compared |
| Minimum relevance | Starting point set to 0.3 | Relevant and irrelevant passages in the sample are labeled first, and retention after filtering is compared |
| Question optimization | Enabled | The sample contains the reference "this order", and the question subject before and after optimization is compared |
| Result reranking | Enabled, using a rerank model | Candidates include multiple settlement statements, and rerank scores are compared with the original ordering |
Three common errors
- Treating retrieval recall as authorized execution. Entering "Order A-1001" and retrieving the settlement statement and reconciliation table only shows the materials were recalled; it does not show the order is reconciliation complete or may be marked so. The "reconciliation complete" in the handover request is a business status change that needs downstream approval and write implementation, and the retrieval result does not supply that authorization.
- Treating minimum relevance as a permission or entity filter. That threshold only filters low-relevance results; it does not exclude unrelated business or unauthorized records. If the sample retrieves another order's settlement statement, a higher or lower threshold does not change the fact that it can be recalled, and permission isolation needs a separate implementation.
- Drawing a contradictory conclusion from different fields or different periods. In the sample the settlement statement records settlement date 2025-03-15, while the reconciliation table records arrival date 2025-03-18 with status pending verification; these are different fields and different stages, and they do not form a contradiction. The draft sentence's claim of "arrived" lacks confirmation of arrival status and is unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample material text and the draft sentence, then compare the draft sentence's "completed settlement and arrived" with the settlement statement's "settlement date 2025-03-15" and the reconciliation table's "status is pending verification". Observed result: retrieval returns the settlement statement and reconciliation table text, and the draft sentence's "arrived" has no corresponding status field in the materials, so it is judged unsupported rather than contradictory.
- Input the handover request "mark this order as reconciliation complete", then compare the requested action with the "pending verification" status in the materials. Observed result: retrieval can return the reconciliation table, but the materials state no approval or write permission, so it is judged pending verification and not treated as executed.
- Input the explicit paper input [], then check whether the downstream design accepts an empty citation array. Observed result: citation length is 0 and the path completes; no claim is made that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns []. If cross-model bases need to be compared, the vector model identifier is checked first, non-matching bases are excluded, and the actual observation is recorded; a cross-model retrieval is not run to compare missed recall.
This page addresses only cross-border platform settlement and exchange / order fulfillment and after-sales question answering / knowledge base retrieval and recall. Whether materials, operations or requests sit at a given authorization state during an operations handover is a separate question, and retrieval or a form is not treated as authorized execution.