What the documents look like
Channel diversion review concerns regional and price order. It does not concern rebate amounts. Materials come from anti-counterfeit code systems, e-commerce platform prices, distributor shipment records, and market inspections. The documents handled day to day are diversion complaint forms, anti-counterfeit code records, penalty notices, and investigation photographs. These materials commonly arrive mixed together as scans, photographs, table fragments, and platform screenshots. For one batch of goods, the logistics codes, shop links, and complaint descriptions sit in separate files.
Document parsing and chunking has to restore these materials into a structure that can point back to the source text, then split them by subject, object, period, and status so that contract and transaction material comparison can use them. The update frequency given for this category is weekly or irregular. That frequency does not change how this page's feature works, so it is noted and set aside.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Material structure is not uniform. Parsing results need to keep document identity and version, so that the conditions stated in a complaint form are not separated from the goods codes those conditions govern. One set of original data can correspond to multiple indexes; chunking must distinguish original data from retrieval indexes. The retrieval step only recalls candidate content. It does not perform authorization judgment. A similarity score is not an entity or permission filter. Retrieving a piece of material does not mean that material has been authorized for penalty action or external disclosure.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. A brand channel control staff member receives a diversion complaint form. The source text reads: "Complaint subject: East China distributor A; goods code range involved: A0001-A0200; discovery date: 10 March 2025; discovery channel: an e-commerce platform shop link; complainant: South China distributor B." A separate distributor shipment record reads: "On 5 March 2025, goods code range A0001-A0200, 200 units total, were shipped to distributor A." The draft sentence to be judged is: "Distributor A sold goods code range A0001-A0200 outside East China channels in March 2025, constituting diversion." Judging that draft sentence requires evidence of the same subject, the same period, and the same field. The available materials show only shipment and complaint. They do not state the actual sales region or sales date. The draft sentence is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists, for the sample above, settings or implementation checks that the official documents describe and that relate to this feature and the primary task. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, used only for comparison with adjacent values. They are not official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Goods code ranges are identifier-type queries, which full-text retrieval can hit; complaint descriptions are natural language, which semantic retrieval can supplement. Compare recall coverage against semantic retrieval alone. |
| Minimum relevance | 0.3 | This starting point observes whether low-relevance fragments enter the candidate set; compare the number of filtered fragments against 0.5. |
| Citation limit | 800 tokens | This starting point controls single-citation length; compare against 400 to see whether a complete goods code range statement is truncated. |
| Question optimization | Enabled | Complaint form descriptions may omit the subject; used to complete references. Compare recall differences in multi-turn follow-ups against disabled. |
| Result reranking | Enabled | When candidates are numerous, use the rerank score for filtering; compare ranking stability against disabled. |
| Index creation | Confirm at ingestion that a text index has been generated | Image description indexes require a vision model; compare whether image material can be recalled against no index built. |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval score as an authorization basis. Input is the retrieval result for the sample above. Compare the score against the business authorization status. If a high-scoring fragment is used directly for a penalty decision, recall and approval have been conflated.
- Merging evidence from different subjects or different periods into a single contradiction. Input is distributor A's shipment record and distributor B's complaint description. Compare the subject and period fields. If diversion is declared established directly, same-subject, same-period sales evidence is missing.
- Treating a successful upload as an updated index. Input is a changed material file. Compare upload status against training and index status. If comparison proceeds without checking the actual index, an older version of the content may be cited.
How to verify the setup
- Search the sample source text for "A0001-A0200". Compare whether the returned fragment contains the complete goods code range and the subject. If the fragment is missing the goods code range or the subject, chunking has not preserved the reference structure.
- Search with the draft sentence "Distributor A sold outside East China channels". Compare whether the returned content contains an actual sales region field. If only the shipment record and complaint description are returned, the judgment is unsupported and the evidence gap must be recorded.
- Use the empty input [] to check the downstream design. Compare whether downstream handles it as "no candidates". If downstream treats the empty result as confirmed diversion, the boundary between retrieval and business judgment has not been distinguished.