What the documents look like
After-sales repair and reship work aims to restore a product to usable condition, and it does not close a case through a direct refund. The daily document set for this category includes repair requests, reship orders, inspection reports, and accessory outbound orders. These records come from the after-sales system, the order system, repair sites, and the accessory warehouse WMS. Staff time is consumed by deciding between repair and reship, coordinating accessories, and tracking customer confirmation. Accessory outbound orders and inspection reports carry model numbers, accessory codes, and quantity fields that both full-text retrieval and semantic retrieval need to cover. These documents are produced per order, and some data updates daily. Parsing and chunking quality directly affects whether later retrieval can locate a specific document.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Repair requests and reship orders often place decision conditions, accessory specifications, and the constrained operation in the same paragraph. If chunking separates a condition sentence from a conclusion sentence, retrieval can hit the conclusion fragment while the applicable premise is absent. The conclusion of an inspection report, its inspection items, and the inspection date belong to the same group of original data; after splitting, a single index may lack a subject or a valid scope. Accessory codes and quantities in outbound orders suit full-text retrieval, while natural-language fault descriptions suit semantic retrieval. Both content types need to retain a traceable original identity inside the same library. One group of original data can map to multiple indexes, and adding indexes does not change the original data content. Vector retrieval runs against the whole library; a collection only classifies data and does not affect search results. The retrieval step does not perform authorization decisions, and a hit does not mean the document has been approved or can be executed.
Configuration and implementation checks
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: an accessory outbound order reads, "Order number PE-2024-0317, accessory code AX-552, quantity 2 units, corresponding repair request WX-2024-1188, outbound date 17 March 2024, applicant Li, purpose is reship to the customer address." One draft sentence awaiting judgment is, "This reship accessory has completed outbound delivery and reached the customer." A separate handover request reads, "Please arrange follow-up reship tracking according to this outbound order."
| Configuration item | Relevant value or check on this page | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Check semantic retrieval and full-text retrieval separately | Codes AX-552 and PE-2024-0317 use full-text retrieval; fault descriptions use semantic retrieval |
| Reference upper limit | For this exercise, a hypothetical starting point is a small token-based value, chosen because order fields are concentrated; the comparison object is the default display length | Check whether key outbound order fields enter the referenced content completely |
| Minimum relevance | For this exercise, a hypothetical starting point is a middle value in the 0-1 range; the comparison object is the recall set when filtering is not enabled | Observe whether a code query is filtered out because the threshold is too high |
| Question optimization | Decide whether to enable it according to actual dialogue turns | A single-turn explicit code query may not need it; check the completion result during multi-turn follow-ups |
| Result reranking | Check when a ReRank model exists and is enabled by settings | Compare the ranking change of outbound order fragments before and after reranking |
| Training and index status | Check the actual training and index generation after upload | Confirm whether PE-2024-0317 has a searchable index |
Three common errors
- Splitting the condition sentence and conclusion sentence of an accessory outbound order into different chunks. The input is the original text containing "purpose is reship to the customer address." Compare whether each fragment after chunking retains the order number and purpose, and observe whether a fragment that only hits the quantity field lacks the purpose constraint.
- Treating a retrieval hit as completed authorization. The input is the handover request above. Compare the request text with the outbound order original, observe whether the original states an approval or execution status, and record it as pending verification when no such statement exists.
- Over-enabling question optimization for code-type queries. The input is "AX-552." Compare the retrieval term before and after optimization, and observe whether optimization rewrites the code and shifts the full-text hit.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample original and the draft sentence "This reship accessory has completed outbound delivery and reached the customer." Compare whether the original states a delivery fact. The original only gives the outbound date and purpose, and the delivery status is not stated, so the judgment is unsupported.
- Input the handover request "Please arrange follow-up reship tracking according to this outbound order." Compare the request with the authorization fields of the original. The original states no approver or execution instruction, so the judgment is pending verification and is not treated as approved execution.
- Input the code "PE-2024-0317" and run full-text retrieval. Compare whether the returned fragment contains the order number and the corresponding repair request, and observe whether the fragment retains identity information traceable to the original. When the result is empty, check the downstream design against the explicit paper input, and do not infer that the rule necessarily returns an empty set. Libraries on different vector models are not associated together; check identifiers first, exclude non-matching ones, and record actual observations.