What the documents look like
Livestream product selection and sample quality inspection happen before a broadcast. The question at this stage is whether a product can be sold on air and whether its presentation is compliant. The materials in scope are sample evaluation forms, quality inspection reports, supplier qualification documents, and prohibited-item lists. Sources include supplier submissions, testing-agency reports, platform negative catalogues, and historical return rates. Errors at this stage produce returns, findings of false advertising, and platform penalties. Materials are updated weekly and per product, so parsing and chunking must keep each material's version and product identity traceable back to the source.
Compared with script review, this work sits before the broadcast and centres on sellability and on-air presentation. The material set mixes structured fields (certificate numbers, validity dates) with conditional prose (test conditions, conclusions, scope statements). A chunking decision made here determines whether a later comparison reads a conditional conclusion as an unconditional one.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Sample evaluation forms and inspection reports often contain conditional clauses, test methods, and conclusions. If chunking separates a condition from its conclusion, a comparison step can read a qualified conclusion as unqualified. Supplier qualification documents carry a subject name, a certificate number, and a validity period. Prohibited-item lists carry a category and a platform scope. Chunks must retain three elements: subject, object, and effective scope.
One group of source data can map to multiple indexes, and the vector score for that group takes the highest score among them. A retrieval hit does not carry an authorization decision. The search scope and permissions are set by the target library's access control; a relevance value does not perform entity filtering or permission filtering.
Hypothetical paper exercise. Source text one: a supplier qualification document states "Subject: Xinglan Daily Chemicals (paper fiction); Unified Social Credit Code: paper-fiction number A0001; Business scope: cosmetics wholesale; Valid until 31 March 2026." Source text two: a testing-agency report states "Sample name: Xinglan Hand Cream; Test item: total bacterial count; Conclusion: conforms to the enterprise standard provided by the commissioning party; Report date: 12 January 2026." Draft sentence to be assessed: "Xinglan Daily Chemicals holds cosmetics wholesale qualification, the hand cream's total bacterial count is qualified, and the product can be scheduled for broadcast." Comparison: whether the validity field in the qualification document covers the proposed broadcast date, and whether the "total bacterial count qualified" claim matches the report's conclusion field on the same subject, the same period, and the same item. The report conclusion points to an enterprise standard and does not state a national standard or platform rule as the basis, so that point is unsupported. Whether the qualification validity covers the broadcast date depends on the broadcast date, which the sample does not provide, so it is recorded as pending verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Certificate numbers and product names are exact queries; conclusion text is a semantic query; both input types need coverage |
| Minimum relevance | Paper starting value 0.30 | This is a hypothetical exercise value used to observe whether low-score fragments are filtered; compare against the number of recalled items when this value is absent |
| Citation cap | Paper starting value 2000 tokens | This is a hypothetical exercise value used to observe whether conditions and conclusions enter the citation in the same batch; compare against chunk integrity at 1000 tokens |
| Question optimization | Not enabled for this exercise | The sample question already contains subject and object; observe raw query terms first, then compare with the enabled result |
| Result reranking | Not enabled for this exercise | Observe ordering after RRF fusion first, then compare with ordering after reranking is enabled |
| Chunk review | Manual review of each material | Check whether conditions, qualifications, and the content they constrain remain in the same data block |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorization conclusion. Finding a qualification document in the library only shows that the document is present. Whether the qualification covers the broadcast date and whether it passed review are separate steps. Compare the validity field against the broadcast date item by item; when the date is missing, record it as pending verification.
- Expanding a report conclusion into a qualification conclusion. The sample report conclusion is limited to conformance with the commissioning party's enterprise standard, while the draft sentence states "total bacterial count qualified." Compare the conclusion field against the basis the draft sentence points to; when the bases differ, the sentence is unsupported.
- Treating a successful upload as an updated index. After a material changes, check the actual training and index state and compare retrieval results before and after the change. The upload action alone does not constitute evidence that retrieval has been updated.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample qualification source text and the draft sentence. Compare the draft sentence's "holds cosmetics wholesale qualification" against the qualification document's subject, business scope, and validity fields. The condition is met when all three align with the proposed broadcast date; when the validity does not cover it or the broadcast date is not provided, the sentence is pending verification.
- Input the sample report source text and the draft sentence. Compare "total bacterial count qualified" against the report conclusion field on item, basis, and date. The condition is met when the basis matches what the draft sentence points to; when the basis differs or is not stated, the sentence is unsupported.
- Use the paper input [] to check the empty-result branch and observe how the downstream design handles an empty citation. Do not infer that a fictional rule's retrieval necessarily returns empty. Run full-text search and semantic search separately on the certificate number and the product name, record the recalled fragments, and compare whether conditions and conclusions stay in the same block. The chunking requirement is met when they stay together; when they are split, return to the chunking settings for review. Retrieval scope and permissions are determined by the target library's access control; a relevance value does not perform entity or permission filtering.