What the documents look like
Platform multi-store matrix management covers store authorization lists, price control tables, cross-territory complaint forms and monthly sales reports. For inventory procurement and supplier materials, the working documents are purchase orders, supplier quotation sheets, supply confirmation letters and authorized supply scope statements. Cross-store authorization and price order are the distinguishing concerns of this category compared with single-store operation: one supply document can constrain the procurement source and supply boundary of several stores at the same time. The brief gives daily and monthly update frequencies for the category. This page addresses parsing and chunking only, and the update rhythm does not change the chunking rules.
A supplier document often places the subject, the authorized supply scope, the validity period and the quotation conditions in one passage. If chunking separates a condition from the content it constrains, retrieval can return the quotation while missing the scope of application. In the documented storage structure, one set of original data can map to several vector indexes through the indexes field, which supports both completeness and semantic richness. Retrieval does not perform authorization judgment. Similarity scores and the minimum relevance threshold affect ordering and filtering only; they do not separate authorized stores from unauthorized stores, and retrieval is not authorization.
Constraints at the document chunking step
The chunking step decides what a later search can return. Three documented conditions matter here. First, a single chunk should keep a complete and single semantic structure, because retrieval precision rises when each unit of data is complete. Second, one set of original data may carry multiple indexes, so a long passage can be mapped to several vectors and be recalled when any one of them matches. Third, the search returns references up to a token ceiling, not a fixed number of chunks, because chunk lengths in a mixed knowledge base vary widely.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The source text to be checked reads: "Supplier A issues an authorized supply statement to Brand B. The authorized parties are Store A and Store B. The authorized scope is Brand B series goods. The validity period runs from 1 March 2025 to 31 December 2025." The draft sentence to be judged reads: "Supplier A has authorized Store C to sell Brand B series goods." The draft sentence differs from the source text in subject, object and authorized scope, so it is not supported by the material. No real customer, company or identity number is involved, and no test has been run.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table lists documented settings or implementation checks relevant to this page's task. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, chosen for comparison against observed retrieval output. They are not official default values.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Hybrid search | Supplier names and authorization numbers need exact hits while scope wording needs semantic recall; compare what each path returns |
| Question optimization | Enabled | Follow-up questions tend to contain references; compare recalled content for the same question with the setting on and off |
| Minimum relevance | 0.5 | Used as a filtering threshold starting point; compare against ReRank scores or vector scores to see whether unrelated fragments decrease |
| Reference ceiling | 800 tokens | Supplier passages are long; compare whether conditions and scope stay complete under different ceilings |
| ReRank | Enabled | Used for second-pass ordering when candidates are numerous; compare the position of the same candidate before and after reranking |
| Index field | indexes array | One set of original data maps to several vectors; check whether the segments cover both conditions and scope |
The documented retrieval chain combines semantic recall, full-text recall, question optimization and reranking, and merges multiple result paths through RRF. RRF is a fusion step in the chain, not a switch. Image retrieval paths require an image input and matching model capability, and reranking requires the model and its setting to be enabled. These optional paths do not run on every request.
Three common errors
- Splitting the authorized parties Store A and Store B of one supply statement into different chunks. A search for Store B then returns the quotation while the authorized object is missing. The check takes the sample source text and the chunking result as input, compares whether each chunk retains subject, object and validity period, and observes whether recalled content lacks the authorized object.
- Filtering out the authorized scope passage through the minimum relevance threshold, leaving only quotation figures in the result. The check takes the same question under different relevance values as input, compares whether the authorized scope is still cited before and after filtering, and observes whether the condition passage disappears.
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization confirmation and accepting Store C in the draft sentence as authorized. The check takes the draft sentence and the sample source text as input, compares the three fields of subject, object and authorized scope, and observes whether the same field holds mutually exclusive values. Where evidence is absent, the result is recorded as unsupported.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample source text and the draft sentence "Supplier A has authorized Store C to sell Brand B series goods." Compare the authorized parties in the source, Store A and Store B, with the object in the draft, Store C; the same field holds different values. The observed result is that the draft sentence is unsupported, and the evidence gap is retained.
- Input the chunking result of the sample source text and compare whether each chunk contains subject, authorized scope and validity period together. The condition is met when a condition and the content it constrains are not separated; where separation occurs, record the specific chunk.
- Input the supplier name and the authorization number as separate searches, and compare what full-text search and semantic search return. The condition is met when a number-type query hits the corresponding passage in the source text. Where it does not hit, record the actual returned content and do not infer a specific failure cause. A paper input of an empty list can be used to check downstream design; this does not mean a constructed rule returns an empty result in practice.
Where a document field is not provided, it remains unknown. A pending request is not an approval, an offered option is not execution, and an unsigned termination is not a completed termination. Verification here covers parsing and chunking only; any approval, database write or external synchronization requires its own stated downstream implementation.