What the documents look like
Closure settlement runs in the opposite direction from head-office site selection and store opening. The work concerns exit and asset recovery rather than acquisition and launch. This page covers four document families: closure approval, inventory clearance sheets, lease termination agreements, and asset count sheets. These materials originate from POS inventory, fixed-asset systems, lease contracts, and financial ledgers. Updates are irregular and occur once per store.
For a single store, the lease termination agreement and the asset count sheet may be submitted by different functions, legal and operations respectively. Document identity and version need to be aligned before parsing and chunking begin. The parties, the object, the status, and the effective scope recorded in the material are the preconditions for any later comparison to hold. A closure approval records that a request was filed. A lease termination agreement may record that terms were agreed. An asset count sheet records physical results at a point in time. These are distinct states, and the chunking step must keep them distinguishable.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Parsing and chunking must preserve document identity and version so that each segment can be traced back to its source. Segmentation should follow the structure of the specific material. Conditions, explanatory notes, and the content they govern must not be split apart. Original data and retrieval indexes are two separate layers. One group of original data can map to multiple indexes.
Retrieval is not authorization. A similarity score does not perform party, store, or permission filtering. Libraries built on different vector models cannot be associated together; identifiers must be checked first, non-matching items excluded, and actual observations recorded. Image retrieval requires an image input and the corresponding model capability. Reranking requires a model and must be enabled according to settings. The optional paths shown in the overall document flow diagram do not mean every request executes all of them.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source text supplied for checking reads: "Party A and Party B signed a lease contract on 1 March 2025 for the store at 88 Mou Road, with a term ending 28 February 2027. Party B submitted a closure approval on 10 November 2025, requesting termination of the lease on 31 December 2025, with a deposit of RMB 50,000 pending settlement." The draft sentence to be assessed reads: "The store lease was terminated on 31 December 2025 and the deposit has been refunded." The source text records only the requested termination date and the deposit as pending settlement. It does not record the landlord's consent, the effective date of termination, or completion of any refund. The draft sentence is unsupported on both the "termination effective" field and the "deposit refunded" field.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below lists only settings documented in the official material or implementation checks relevant to document parsing and chunking for this page. The numeric values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise and must be compared against control values before any judgment.
| Configuration or check item | Hypothetical starting point | Reason and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Lease numbers and store numbers are exact queries; natural-language phrasings are semantic queries; compare against semantic retrieval alone |
| Reference limit | Hypothetical starting point 3000 tokens | Reference volume is controlled in tokens; compare stability against 1500 and 6000 starting points |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point 0.4 | Takes effect only in semantic retrieval or with result reranking; compare filtered candidates against 0.2 and 0.6 |
| Question optimization | Not enabled for now | Over-optimization of number-type questions shifts recall; compare recalled content against the enabled state |
| Result reranking | Enabled when a model is available | Hybrid retrieval has a wide range and needs filtering by rerank score; compare ordering against no reranking |
| Chunking check | Split by material structure | Check whether conditions and the content they govern fall in the same segment; compare against fixed-length splitting |
Three common errors
- Treating "submitted closure approval, requested lease termination" as "lease terminated." The error is equating a request state with an effective state. Executable check: input the source text and draft sentence above, compare the "requested termination date" field with the "termination effective" field. When the source text records no effective information, the draft sentence is judged unsupported.
- Treating "deposit pending settlement" as "deposit refunded." The error is equating a pending-settlement state with completed refund. Executable check: input the source text and draft sentence, compare "deposit pending settlement" with "deposit refunded." The two values are mutually exclusive on the same field. The source text supports only pending settlement, so the draft sentence is judged unsupported.
- Using a similarity score in place of party or store filtering. The error is treating a relevance threshold as a permission or entity-isolation mechanism. Executable check: input a query term containing one store number, compare the party field of returned content against the target store. If material from another store is returned, record it as a filtering gap. Do not decide attribution from the score value.
How to verify the setup
- Source text and draft sentence comparison. Input the hypothetical sample source text and draft sentence above, compare the "termination effective" and "deposit refunded" fields. The draft sentence is satisfied only when the source text explicitly records the landlord's consent to termination and completion of the refund. Otherwise it is judged unsupported, and the evidence gap is preserved.
- Chunking completeness check. Input the lease termination agreement source text, compare whether the conditional clause and the termination date it governs fall in the same segment. If the condition and the conclusion are split apart, the chunking does not meet the requirement and the splitting method needs adjustment.
- Retrieval observation. Input the store number and a natural-language phrasing as separate queries, compare whether returned content covers the corresponding material, and record the actual observation. For the empty-result handoff, a clearly labelled paper input of an empty list can be used to check downstream design. Do not claim that a fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty list. Libraries on different models cannot be associated together; check identifiers first and exclude non-matching items.
This page addresses only chain-store closure settlement, contract and transaction material comparison, and document parsing and chunking. At operations handover, which materials, operations, and requests sit at which authorization state cannot be treated as authorization execution by retrieval or by a form.