What the documents look like
Contract and transaction material comparison in the foreign exchange receipt, settlement and trade directory category works from receipt advices, trade contracts, invoices and foreign exchange business registration materials. The category centers on the authenticity of foreign exchange funds and trade background. It does not review a full set of letter of credit documents, which is the distinguishing feature against letter of credit examination. Policy material from the national foreign exchange administration, bank online banking records, corporate finance ledgers and customs export data feed this work. Foreign trade finance staff, bank relationship managers and foreign exchange specialists handle it. Errors produce bank returns, abnormal foreign exchange classification and funds that cannot be credited. Material updates follow each transaction and the month, and this page addresses chunking and retrieval for a single transaction's materials.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Hypothetical drill sample: a foreign trade enterprise finance staff member submits one receipt advice and one trade contract, intending to check whether both point to the same transaction. The receipt advice text reads: "On 10 March 2025, received inward payment from overseas buyer Company A, USD 50,000, transaction remark: contract number HT-2025-018." The contract text reads: "Seller Company B, buyer Company A, contract number HT-2025-018, goods are one batch of hardware fittings, total price USD 50,000, signing date 28 February 2025." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "The receipt advice and contract agree on subject, amount and contract number, so the trade background can be confirmed as authentic." This draft sentence exceeds the material scope: the materials support agreement on three fields only, subject, amount and contract number, and do not state any basis for judging the authenticity of the trade background.
Document parsing and chunking must preserve document identity and version that allow reference back to the source text. Paragraphs are checked against the structure of the specific material so that conditions, explanations and the content they constrain are not split apart. Original data and retrieval indexes are distinguished, and one group of original data can correspond to multiple indexes. Terminology, numbers and natural language are each used for retrieval to check how segmentation affects the actual question. After material changes, the actual training and index state is checked; a successful upload is not treated directly as retrieval having been updated. Retrieval and forms do not carry authorization execution.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Relevant setting or implementation check on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Semantic retrieval, full-text retrieval or hybrid retrieval, chosen by the actual field type | Contract number HT-2025-018 is an exact number, so full-text retrieval or hybrid retrieval is suitable |
| Reference limit | Each search references at most n tokens of content | For this sample a starting value of 3000 tokens is assumed, because the receipt advice and contract together are short; compare with 2000 tokens to observe whether both source passages are covered |
| Minimum relevance | A 0-1 value, effective only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used | For this sample a starting value of 0.3 is assumed; compare with 0.5 to observe changes in candidate count |
| Result reranking | Requires a ReRank model, enabled according to settings, with a 0-1 score | Assumed enabled for this sample, used to reorder candidate text a second time |
| Question optimization | Performs coreference resolution and question expansion before retrieval | The sample question is already clear, so whether to enable it is decided by actual effect |
| Data and index check | Distinguishes original data from retrieval indexes; one group of original data can correspond to multiple indexes | Checks whether valid indexes were generated after the receipt advice and contract were ingested |
Three common errors
- Treating the draft sentence "the trade background can be confirmed as authentic" as already supported. The input is the receipt advice and contract text above, and the comparison is between "trade background authentic" in the draft sentence and the fields actually stated in the source text. The source text states agreement on subject, amount and contract number only, and states no basis for judging trade background authenticity, so that judgment remains unsupported.
- Treating a successful upload as retrieval having been updated. The input is the upload operation record after a material change, and the comparison is against the actual training and index state. A successful upload and updated retrieval are two different facts, and the training and index state must be checked before a judgment is made.
- Treating retrieval results as authorized execution. The input is the candidate content returned by retrieval, and the comparison is against the business authorization state. Retrieval and forms do not carry authorization execution, and a pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission.
How to verify the setup
- Input the receipt advice and contract text above, and compare the part of the draft sentence reading "subject, amount and contract number agree" against the three fields stated in the source text. When all three fields agree, that part is judged satisfied; the part reading "the trade background can be confirmed as authentic" is recorded as unsupported because the source text states no basis for that judgment.
- Input contract number "HT-2025-018" as the retrieval term, and compare the results returned by full-text retrieval and semantic retrieval. Observe whether the corresponding contract passage is recalled, and record the actual returned content without assuming a first-item hit or full recall.
- Input an explicit paper empty result [] and compare how the downstream design handles an empty result. Check whether the downstream distinguishes an empty result from a not-found outcome, without asserting that a hypothetical rule retrieval necessarily returns [].