What the documents look like
Peak-sale fulfillment planning centers on short-term peak capacity and the arrangement of people, vehicles, and warehouse space. For inventory procurement and supplier records, the working material sits at the intersection of campaign registration volumes, WMS capacity, courier pickup capability, and historical peak-sale orders. The documents handled day to day include peak-sale forecast tables, staffing rosters, courier assurance plans, and exception daily reports. These materials refresh with each campaign and on a daily basis.
Frequent updates mean that parsing and chunking must preserve document identity and version. Without that, two versions of the same forecast table collapse into one passage. Procurement and supplier records commonly carry a subject, an object, a status, and a validity scope. A supplier's temporary supply commitment to one warehouse, or the date range covered by an assurance plan, are typical examples. When chunking separates those conditions from the content they constrain, a retrieved fragment loses the basis for judgment.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Check the source structure and the parsed result first, and keep the document identity and version that allow a passage to be traced back to the source. Inspect paragraphs against the actual structure of the material so that conditions, notes, and the content they constrain are not split apart. Distinguish original data from retrieval indexes; one set of original data can map to multiple indexes. Run retrieval separately with terminology, identifiers, and natural-language questions to see how segmentation affects real questions. After a material change, check the actual training and index status. A successful upload does not mean retrieval has updated.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample: a material titled "Temporary Supply Assurance Plan for a Warehouse August Peak Sale" reads: "This plan applies from August 1 to August 7, under which Supplier A supplies packaging consumables to Warehouse No. 2. The plan lists a daily arrival cap and a contact person, and does not list price terms." The handover request to be judged is: "Based on this plan, confirm that Supplier A has agreed to supply for the full month of August and has locked the price." The source states only August 1 to August 7, Warehouse No. 2, and packaging consumables. It does not state the full month or a price. The request is unsupported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table below is a hypothetical starting point for this exercise. It is not an official default. The reason for each choice is alignment with the field scope of the sample material, and the comparison object is the date range and subject stated in the source.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Comparison and reason |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Compare with full-text retrieval results; the sample contains identifiers and proper nouns |
| Reference cap | A hypothetical value counted in tokens | Compare with sample passage length to avoid cutting off conditional sentences |
| Minimum relevance | A hypothetical 0-1 threshold | Compare with semantic retrieval or rerank scores; used only as a filter |
| Question optimization | Off for this exercise | Compare with the time cost when enabled; the sample question already contains a subject |
| Index check | Check the correspondence between indexes and original data | Compare with the dataset.datas record to confirm multi-vector mapping |
| Training status check | Check actual training and index status | Compare with upload success status; the two are not equivalent |
Three common errors
- Treating a successful upload as updated retrieval. Input is the upload record of the sample material; the comparison object is the actual training and index status; the observable result is that no corresponding fragment is retrieved when no index has been generated.
- Treating a pending handover request as authorized execution. Input is the request "confirm that agreement has been given"; the comparison object is the date and subject stated in the source; the observable result is that the source does not state the full month or a price, so the judgment is unsupported.
- Treating semantic relevance as a permission or entity filter. Input is a query containing Supplier A; the comparison object is the authorization scope of the returned fragments; the observable result is that a relevance score does not carry permission judgment, and authorization must be checked separately.
How to verify the setup
- Verification 1: Input the sample source text and the request to be judged. Compare the source date range "August 1 to August 7" with the request's "full month of August." The observable result is that the request exceeds the source range, and the judgment is unsupported.
- Verification 2: Input the term "packaging consumables," an identifier, and a natural-language question. Compare whether the fragments recalled by each path trace back to the same document version. The observable result is that when segmentation preserves conditional sentences, a fragment can be judged on its own.
- Verification 3: Input the paper input [] for empty-result handling. Compare how the downstream design handles an empty reference. The observable result is that no claim is made that retrieval necessarily returns empty; only the actual observation is recorded. After a material change, recheck training and index status, and leave missing evidence as a gap.