What the documents look like
Peak-sale warehouse and delivery scheduling centers on short-term peak capacity and the arrangement of people, vehicles, and space. This differs from routine multi-warehouse inventory synchronization, which follows a steadier balancing logic. The main data sources are historical peak-sale orders, platform campaign registrations, WMS capacity, and courier pickup capacity. These update per campaign and daily. In this setting, contract and transaction material comparison works with four document types: peak-sale forecast tables, staff shift schedules, courier support plans, and exception daily reports. Together these materials serve three time-consuming steps: forecasting order peaks, arranging temporary staff, and coordinating courier vehicles.
The retrieval and recall step locates passages from these documents that relate to contract clauses and transaction status, so that comparison can proceed. The parties, objects, statuses, and validity ranges recorded in the materials are the basis for judgment. A retrieval result on its own does not constitute authorization or execution.
A document may be a forecast table with quantity scopes, a shift schedule with named roles and time windows, a courier support plan with service regions and daily deadlines, or an exception report with dated events. Each carries different fields, so the retrieval step must return passages whose fields can actually be compared.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Knowledge bases using different vector models cannot be associated together; the identifiers are checked and non-matching bases are excluded. Search modes are semantic search, full-text search, and hybrid search. Test questions are used to compare the three modes; no single mode is assumed to suit all materials. The citation limit is measured in tokens. Materials of different lengths are used to test whether content is complete, and the limit is then adjusted. The minimum relevance value takes effect only in semantic search or when result reranking is used. Relevant and irrelevant samples are labeled first, and the threshold is set afterward. Problem optimization performs coreference resolution and question expansion. The original question and the optimized question are compared, and the subject is checked for unintended changes. Hybrid search merges multiple result paths through RRF; RRF is a fusion process, not a switch that can be turned on. Reranking requires a model and must be enabled according to settings. Image retrieval requires corresponding image input and model capability. The output citation content is returned as an array, and its length can be zero, meaning the output path still runs even when nothing is found.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: A warehouse submits the original text of a courier support plan containing three sentences: "This plan applies from June 1, 2025 to June 20, 2025. Party A commissions Party B to provide pickup services in the East China region during the peak sale. Party B must complete vehicle arrival before 6:00 each day." A draft sentence awaits judgment: "Party B completes vehicle arrival before 6:00 each day in South China." The comparison task is to check whether the draft sentence matches the original on party, region, period, and action. In the original, the party is Party B, the region is East China, the period is before 6:00 each day from June 1 to June 20, and the action is vehicle arrival. The draft changes the region to South China. The region field holds mutually exclusive values against the original, which constitutes a contradiction. This sample is for paper review only and is not claimed to have been tested.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Associate only one base using the same vector model | Different vector models cannot be associated together; check identifiers first and exclude non-matching bases |
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Contract clauses contain both codes and natural language; compare semantic and full-text recall paths |
| Citation limit | Set to a token amount covering the longest clause passage | Use materials of different lengths to test content completeness and compare against a shorter value |
| Minimum relevance | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then set the threshold | This value takes effect only in semantic search or reranking; compare results before and after filtering |
| Problem optimization | Enable for follow-up questions containing coreference | Compare the original question and the optimized question, and check the subject for unintended changes |
| Result reranking | Enable when candidates are numerous | Requires a model and must be enabled according to settings; compare ordering before and after reranking |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval result as an authorization basis. A retrieved contract passage does not mean the contract has taken effect or has been approved. The input is the citation content returned by retrieval; the comparison object is the contract signing status field; the observable result is that citation content exists while the signing status is not stated, and at that point only an evidence gap can be recorded.
- Treating minimum relevance as an entity or permission filter. Minimum relevance is a filtering threshold and does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. The input is a query containing an unrelated party; the comparison object is the party field in returned results; the observable result is that low-relevance passages are filtered while passages with a non-matching party may still be returned, requiring manual party verification.
- Treating a pending review status as granted authorization. The input is an operation request in the draft sentence; the comparison object is the authorization status field in the original; the observable result is that the original does not state authorization, so the draft sentence cannot be judged as authorized on that basis and can only be marked as pending verification.
How to verify the setup
- Input the three original sentences and the draft sentence from the hypothetical sample, and compare the region field. The original states East China; the draft states South China. The two values are mutually exclusive on the same field, and the observable result is that a contradiction holds. If the original does not state a region, the result is unsupported and cannot be called a negation.
- Input a follow-up question containing coreference, and compare the subject before and after problem optimization. The question before optimization lacks a subject; after optimization the subject is completed. The observable result is that the subject matching the original passes, while a changed subject requires adjustment.
- Input a query with no matching content, and compare the length of the returned citation array. The observable result is that the array length is zero while the path still runs. Downstream design must accept an empty result; it cannot be claimed that a fictional rule will always return an empty array.