What the documents look like
Central chain procurement and distribution work in this category turns on headquarters purchasing and outbound delivery, not on store-level display. The documents that feed copy drafting are collective procurement contracts, replenishment plans, delivery notes and store requisition forms. Source data arrives from ERP purchasing, WMS, store POS and supplier delivery records, updated daily and weekly.
Copy drafting draws on material fields that decide whether a proposed sentence can be supported: supplier name, product specification, supply period, delivery quantity and valid scope. A promotional line can only be judged against the material that carries those fields. A contract excerpt that names a supplier and a product but states a bounded supply period does not support an open-ended claim such as year-round supply.
Constraints at the context limits step
The maximum context of the selected model sets how much material a single request can reference. The reply cap limits output length only and cannot be treated as the full context window. Knowledge base reference limits are controlled in tokens, so a long contract excerpt may be trimmed and the cited content must be checked against the source for completeness. Memory turns affect the input; comparing the same question under empty history and under history isolates context differences from other causes.
Hypothetical paper exercise. Source text to be checked: "Party A: a regional chain supply center. Party B: a food supplier. The contract subject is a 500 g nut gift box, with a supply period from 1 March 2025 to 31 August 2025. Party B delivers in batches according to Party A's replenishment plan." Proposed draft sentence: "This product is supplied stably by this supplier throughout the year." The required elements are the two parties, the nut gift box, and the stated supply period. The material does not state year-round supply, so the proposed sentence exceeds what the material supports. This is a paper case only; no test, approval or deployment is claimed.
Minimum relevance applies only under semantic retrieval or result reranking, and acts as a filter threshold. It does not separate businesses or unauthorized records. Retrieval is not authorization.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | A model whose maximum context can hold the contract excerpt and the draft sentence | Compare the model maximum context with the sample material length to confirm the material is not truncated |
| Reply cap | Enabled, set long enough to output the basis and the handling action | Compare truncated output with complete output to confirm the basis sentence is not cut off early |
| Temperature | Set low | Copy checking requires stability; compare two generations for consistency |
| Reference limit | Set in tokens, covering the single contract excerpt | Compare the cited content with the source to confirm key fields are not trimmed |
| Question optimization | Enabled as needed | Compare empty-history and history inputs to confirm the referent stays consistent |
| Reply format | Choose json_schema when downstream reading is required | Compare returned fields with required fields to confirm the structure is usable |
These values are hypothetical starting points for this exercise and are not official defaults. Documented identifiers referenced here include json_schema, RRF and ReRank. RRF is a fusion step for combining multiple retrieval paths, not a toggle. A thinking budget is a reasoning budget and must not be reused as a reference token limit.
Three common errors
- Treating the reply cap as the full context window. Input: the contract excerpt and the draft sentence above. Compare the model maximum context with the reply cap and observe whether the material is truncated. The two settings carry different meanings.
- Treating "supplied stably throughout the year" as supported by the material. Input: the supply period 1 March 2025 to 31 August 2025. Compare the period field with the "throughout the year" wording and observe whether they match. The material does not state year-round supply, so the sentence is unsupported.
- Overusing question optimization for exact identifier queries. Input: a contract-number question. Compare retrieved content before and after enabling question optimization and observe whether the number is rewritten. Identifier queries are better served by full-text or hybrid retrieval.
How to verify the setup
- Input the contract excerpt and the draft sentence. Compare the supply period in the draft sentence with the period field in the source, and observe whether they share the same parties, the same period and the same field. Where values differ or the source is silent, record the result as unsupported or pending verification. Do not record it as a denial or a conflict.
- Input the same question under empty history and under history. Compare the two inputs and observe whether the referent stays consistent. Retrieval differences caused by history should be recorded separately and not attributed to model capability.
- Input a fixed reply-format request. Compare the returned fields with the required fields and observe whether parsing succeeds. Where fields are missing, record the gap and do not claim the check passed. For empty-result handling, a paper input of [] can be used to check downstream design; do not claim that a fictional rule lookup necessarily returns empty. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be jointly associated; check identifiers first, exclude non-matching ones, and record the actual observation.