What the documents look like
Chain-store site selection happens before a store opens. The core materials are lease and engineering delivery documents. A site evaluation form records trade-area foot traffic and map POI judgments. A lease letter of intent carries landlord information and lease terms. A renovation budget and an opening schedule constrain engineering milestones. These materials update irregularly, one set per store, and the responsible parties are headquarters expansion, regional development, and engineering managers.
Contract and transaction material comparison requires placing letter-of-intent terms, budget amounts, and schedule milestones in the same context for checking. A model's maximum context determines how much content a single request can reference. The reply limit only constrains output length. Treating the reply limit as the full context window truncates a long letter of intent, and term checking loses its basis.
Constraints at the context limits step
The reference limit controls, by tokens, the maximum content referenced per search. When a single material passage is long and the question sample is short, a low reference limit keeps later clauses out of the referenced content. The memory round count controls how many earlier conversation rounds are referenced. The same question produces different input under empty history versus history, so history conditions must be fixed before checking.
Hypothetical drill sample. Lease letter of intent text for checking: Party A is a commercial plaza, Party B is a chain brand headquarters; the leased premises is basement level B12, gross floor area about 120 square meters; the letter states a three-year lease term starting from the delivery date, with rent paid quarterly. Renovation budget text: the total renovation budget for premises B12 is RMB 480,000, of which engineering payment is 320,000 and equipment payment is 160,000. Draft sentence to be judged: This letter of intent has confirmed quarterly rent payment, the renovation budget total is 480,000, the two materials agree on amounts and payment method, and the case can proceed directly to the signing schedule.
This draft sentence mixes fields from the letter of intent and the budget in one judgment. The letter of intent does not state a renovation budget amount, and the budget does not state a rent payment method. Both are unsupported. On authorization status, the letter of intent is in a pending-review state. Signing, reaching cooperation, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. Pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission, and it does not constitute signing authorization.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below centers on the sample above and lists only officially documented settings or implementation check items relevant to this feature and primary task.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| AI model maximum context | Use the value shown in the dialog | Compare with the combined text length of the letter of intent plus budget to confirm whether terms enter the request as a whole |
| Reply limit | Hypothetical starting point 1500 tokens | Compare with the length needed for the draft sentence plus basis explanation; too short truncates the basis |
| Reference limit | Hypothetical starting point 3000 tokens | Compare with the single letter-of-intent passage and question sample; observe whether later clauses are trimmed |
| Memory rounds | Hypothetical starting point 2 rounds | Compare with the same question under empty history to exclude differences carried in by history |
| Reply format | Hypothetical starting point json_schema | Field completeness and parse success require actual checking, not text length alone |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point 0.5 | Takes effect only in semantic retrieval or with result reranking; compare with rerank scores to filter low-relevance results |
Minimum relevance is a filter threshold, not a permission or entity isolation measure, and it does not exclude unrelated businesses or unauthorized records. Retrieval is not authorization. RRF is a mixed-result fusion process and is not written as a toggle. Thinking budget is a reasoning budget and is unrelated to the reference token limit. Empty-result handoff can be checked against an explicit paper input [] for downstream design; it does not claim that a fictional rule search necessarily returns [].
Three common errors
- Treating the reply limit as the context window. Input is the full letter of intent plus the full budget. Compare the model maximum context field with the reply limit field. The observation point is whether long clauses enter the request as a whole. If only the reply limit value is read, clause truncation goes undetected.
- Judging consistency across fields. Input is the draft sentence and the two source materials. Compare the field set of the letter of intent with the field set of the budget. The observation point is that the rent payment method appears only in the letter of intent and the renovation amount appears only in the budget. Only explicit mutually exclusive values for the same subject, same period, and same field count as a contradiction. Not stated counts only as unsupported.
- Treating pending review as authorization. Input is the letter-of-intent status field and the signing-schedule conclusion in the draft sentence. Compare the status description with the draft conclusion. The observation point is that pending review, signing, and contract effectiveness are three distinct facts. Pending review does not demonstrate a lack of operating permission, and it does not constitute execution authorization.
How to verify the setup
- Context check. Input is the hypothetical sample's letter-of-intent text and budget text. Compare the model maximum context with the combined length of the two materials. The observation point is that clauses enter the request as a whole without truncation. If truncation appears, record the gap and adjust the reference limit or check in segments.
- Field consistency check. Input is the draft sentence and the two source texts. Compare whether the fields involved in the draft conclusion have corresponding values in the source texts. The observation point is that only mutually exclusive values for the same field count as a contradiction, while not stated counts as unsupported. Do not fabricate authorization or effectiveness clauses to obtain a definite answer.
- History condition check. Input is the same question under empty history and under 2 rounds of history. Compare the two request inputs. The observation point is whether content carried in by history changes the referenced result. The retrieval check records only observations and failure branches, and does not guarantee a first hit or full recall. Libraries across different vector models cannot be jointly associated; verify identifiers first, exclude non-conforming ones, and record actual observations.