What the documents look like
Channel receivables collection happens after credit sales, and the core work is credit granting and cash recovery. The working materials sit in financial systems, bank receipts, distributor orders and sales contracts, and they take the form of accounts receivable aging tables, collection letters, credit agreements and shipment freeze notices. These documents update weekly or monthly. A single item typically carries the distributor name, order number, due date, amount already collected, credit limit and freeze status. The copy drafting step has to turn facts from these materials into outward-facing wording, so which source passages enter the context, and how much of each passage enters, determines whether a drafted sentence can be supported by the materials.
Constraints at the context limits step
Drafted sentences involve amounts, payment terms and freeze status, and these facts are spread across different documents. The context window is checked against the actual model capability, while the reply limit only restricts generation length; the two cannot be treated as the same thing. The knowledge base reference limit uses tokens as its unit, and a long single passage may be truncated, so the actual referenced content needs to be checked against a question sample. In multi-turn follow-ups, earlier input changes the context the model sees, and the same question may produce different drafts with empty history and with history. When a fixed reply format is used, field completeness and successful parsing need separate verification; acceptable text length does not mean the structure is correct.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: the source material reads "Distributor A, order number A-001, due date 31 March 2025, as of 10 April 2025 collected 40,000 yuan, remaining 60,000 yuan uncollected. The credit agreement sets the credit limit at 100,000 yuan, and freezing shipment beyond the credit limit requires written consent from the finance lead." The sentence to be judged is "Distributor A has seriously breached the contract, and supply will stop immediately." Neither the breach finding nor the supply stop action has any corresponding record in the material.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Model context | The actual maximum context of the chosen model | Compare with the total tokens of the materials to confirm the aging table and credit agreement can enter together |
| Reply limit | A length sufficient to write the basis and the handling action | Compare with the number of fields the drafted sentence needs, so amounts and dates are not truncated |
| Reference limit | A value in tokens set for this exercise | Compare with the length of a single passage to check whether the collection letter is truncated |
| History turns | Keep a small number of turns first | Compare the same question under empty history and with history to see the draft difference |
| Reply format | Use json_schema when fixed fields are required | Check field completeness and successful parsing, not only text length |
| Minimum relevance | Takes effect only under semantic retrieval or reranking | Compare with recalled content to confirm the needed material remains after filtering |
Three common errors
- Treating the reply limit as the full context window. When the total tokens of the input materials exceed the model maximum context, the aging table or credit agreement may not enter completely, and the drafted sentence will lack the amount basis. The check compares the total tokens of the materials with the model context value.
- Treating minimum relevance as a permission or entity filter. A relevance score only reflects how similar content is to the question; it does not distinguish the distributor entity, and it does not judge whether a record is authorized. The check compares whether the recalled content matches the target distributor name.
- Treating retrieval results as authorization to write. A retrieved credit agreement only shows the material exists; freezing shipment still follows the written-consent process set out in the agreement. The check compares the action in the drafted sentence with the authorization conditions recorded in the material.
How to verify the setup
- For the hypothetical sample, input the source material text and the drafted sentence, and compare whether "breach" and "supply stop" in the drafted sentence have corresponding records in the source text. The source text records only the due date, the collected amount and the written-consent requirement for freezing. The expected result is that these two statements are unsupported and need rewriting or additional material.
- For the reference limit, input the same collection letter and one follow-up question, and compare whether the returned referenced content contains the due date and the remaining amount. The expected result is that the key fields appear completely; if they are truncated, record the gap and recheck after adjusting the reference limit.
- For history input, input the same question under empty history and with history, and compare whether the two drafts cite the same due date and the same order number. The expected result is that the fact fields stay consistent; if a different amount or a different order appears, record the context difference and keep the item pending verification.