What the documents look like
Export tax rebate filing happens after goods leave the country, and the work is tax-voucher matching rather than customs declaration. The daily materials are the export tax exemption and rebate filing form, the export customs declaration, purchase invoices, and foreign exchange receipt vouchers. The contract and transaction material comparison step checks these vouchers against the contract item by item: the parties, the object of the transaction, the amount, and the status.
Materials update monthly or per batch. A document specialist and a tax accountant handle several files under the same export batch. When fields disagree, the consequence is a delayed rebate, a rebate that cannot be granted, or tax risk. For this page the relevant fact is that a single batch may combine documents of very different lengths, and that the comparison result feeds a filing decision rather than a payment action.
Constraints at the context limits step
Contracts, customs declarations, purchase invoices, and receipt vouchers differ in length, and the combined material for one batch may exceed the content length a model can reference in a single request. The model maximum context and the reply limit are two different parameters. The reply limit cannot be used as if it were the full context window. The knowledge base reference limit is measured in tokens, so a long single document can be trimmed and the party, object, or amount field may not reach the model input. More memory turns bring more prior conversation into the request, which changes consumption and response speed.
When a fixed reply format is used, verify that fields are complete and that parsing succeeds; checking text length alone does not show this. Retrieval and forms collect and recall content. Business verification, approval, database writes, and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation. A similarity score does not carry permission or entity isolation, and retrieval is not authorization.
Configuration and implementation checks
The settings below relate to a hypothetical drill sample for this page. They list only settings the official documents describe, or implementation checks. The values are starting points for this drill, used to compare against another value, and are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this drill | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model | A model shown in the dialog as supporting tool calling and a larger maximum context | Compare with a smaller-context model whether the same batch input is truncated |
| Reply limit | Enabled, set to a length that can hold the four fields: party, object, amount, status | Compare with a lower value whether fields are cut off early |
| Reference limit | Set by token, covering the longest single document in this batch | Compare with a lower token value whether referenced content is trimmed |
| Minimum relevance | Kept at a lower value | Compare with a higher value how the number of candidate results changes |
| Search mode | Hybrid search with result reranking | Compare with semantic search alone on recall of exact fields such as numbers and amounts |
| Reply format | When fixed fields are needed, select json_schema and fill in the format requirement | Compare with the default format whether fields are complete and parseable |
Three common errors
- Treating the reply limit as the full context window. The reply limit only caps how long one model answer may be. When total material length exceeds the model maximum context, the input is still trimmed. The check is to read the model maximum context and the reply limit as two separate numbers, then compare the combined length of this batch against them.
- Treating the token-based reference limit as a count of items. The reference limit is measured in tokens, so the longer a single document, the fewer documents can be referenced. The check is to estimate this batch in tokens and compare whether the referenced content covers the four fields: party, object, amount, status.
- Treating retrieval results as business authorization. Retrieval only recalls content, and a similarity score does not perform permission or entity isolation. The check is to confirm that the material to be verified actually sits inside a search scope the operator may access; when it is missing, record the evidence gap and do not infer approval or authorization status.
How to verify the setup
Hypothetical drill sample: a document specialist at a foreign trade enterprise submits a contract and transaction material comparison request for one export batch. The material text reads: "Contract No. HX-2024-018, seller is a domestic foreign trade enterprise, buyer is an overseas company, goods are one batch of household appliances, total contract amount is USD 120,000, signing date is 5 March 2024. The corresponding export customs declaration filing date is 20 March 2024, declared total price is USD 120,000. The purchase invoice issue date is 1 March 2024, total amount including tax is RMB 840,000." The draft sentence to be judged is: "The contract, customs declaration, and purchase invoice for this export batch agree on party, amount, and date, and the rebate filing may be submitted." Authorization boundary: the document specialist only submits the comparison request; approval and filing submission must be completed separately.
- Input the three material passages above and the draft sentence, then compare the contract amount, the declared total price on the customs declaration, and the tax-inclusive total on the purchase invoice, including currency. If the contract and the customs declaration are both USD 120,000 in the same currency, the amount field is supported. If the purchase invoice is in RMB and states no exchange-rate conversion basis, that field remains to be verified.
- Input the same question under two conditions, empty history and two prior turns of history, then compare what the model actually receives as input. If the referenced content under history is trimmed so that the party or amount field is missing, the context length is insufficient, and the reference limit or the submission split needs adjustment.
- Input one reference result explicitly written as empty, then check how the downstream node is designed to handle an empty reference. If the downstream follows a preset branch that reports missing material and keeps the status as to be verified, the receiving design holds. If the downstream directly outputs a definite conclusion, record that this branch is not supported.
These checks are paper exercises. No test was actually run, and they do not constitute approval, a rebate, or a filing result.