What the documents look like
Producer export tax refunds combine the offset of internal sales tax with the refund calculation. That combined treatment means inventory procurement and supplier records cannot serve only one stage of the workflow. Purchase receipt records, supplier invoices, export contracts, and the producer export tax refund declaration detail table carry quantity and amount relationships that must correspond to each other. Retrieval therefore needs to cover these materials together rather than treating any one of them as the whole picture.
The main data sources are the electronic tax bureau, ERP sales, customs electronic information, and the financial ledger. The documents handled day to day are the producer export tax refund declaration detail table, export contracts, the sales detail ledger, and export customs declarations. Materials update monthly. This page does not address batch synchronization or real-time trigger mechanisms.
Constraints at the retrieval step
The knowledge base search node can associate one or more knowledge bases that use the same vector model. Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated together. At implementation time, check the vector model identifier first, exclude those that do not match, and record what was actually observed. Do not run a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
Citation content is output as an array, and its length can be zero. When nothing is found, the output link still runs through. Retrieval results do not perform authorization judgment. A retrieved material does not mean supplier records have been approved or that procurement has been authorized.
Hypothetical exercise sample: during preparation for a July 2025 producer export tax refund declaration, a tax accountant holds three materials. Material one is a purchase receipt, original text: "Supplier A, 3 July 2025, fabric received 1200 meters, purchase order number CG-2025-071, acceptance inspector has signed." Material two is an export contract, original text: "This contract takes effect on the date both parties affix their seals; export quantity is subject to the customs declaration." Material three is a draft producer export tax refund declaration detail table, original text: "The current period export tax refund amount is attributed to July 2025 according to the export date on the customs declaration." The draft sentence to be assessed is: "Supplier A's fabric procurement for this batch has passed tax refund review." This request concerns an authorization status. Retrieval or form collection of values does not constitute review approval.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Associated knowledge bases | Inventory procurement base and supplier records base; check both vector model identifiers first | Association is possible only when identifiers match; when they differ, exclude and record the observation |
| Search mode | First test full-text search with purchase order number CG-2025-071 | Numbers are exact queries; compare hit differences against semantic search results |
| Citation limit | Hypothetical starting point 2000 tokens | Test content completeness with receipt and contract materials of different lengths, then adjust |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point 0.5 | Label relevant and irrelevant samples first, then compare filtering effects; takes effect only in semantic search or with reranking |
| Question optimization | Enable for referential questions such as "this batch of fabric" | Compare the original question with the optimized question, verify whether the subject was altered |
| Result reranking | Enable when candidates are numerous | Requires a rerank model enabled per settings; compare ordering before and after reranking |
Three common errors
- Treating a retrieval hit as authorization approval. Input the draft sentence "Supplier A's fabric procurement for this batch has passed tax refund review," compare the retrieval output against review records, and note that when the citation array contains no review conclusion, the sentence is unsupported.
- Associating knowledge bases that use different vector models. Input the vector model identifiers of the two bases, compare whether the identifiers match, and when they differ, exclude them without inferring missed recalls or redundant results.
- Writing a pending-review status as completed. Input material three, the draft, compare its wording against the phrase "review passed," and note that the draft states no review conclusion and remains unverified.
How to verify the setup
- Input the original text of material one and the search term CG-2025-071, compare the hits from full-text search and semantic search, and observe whether the number is recalled exactly. When no hit occurs, record the failure branch; a first-position hit is not guaranteed.
- Input the draft sentence "Supplier A's fabric procurement for this batch has passed tax refund review," compare the retrieval citation content against authorization records, and observe whether a review conclusion field exists. When it is missing, record the evidence gap.
- Input the original text of material two, "This contract takes effect on the date both parties affix their seals," compare the contract effectiveness condition against the review wording in the draft sentence, and observe whether the two concern the same fact. When they do not, the sentence is unsupported. An empty result can be checked against the downstream design using the paper input [], without claiming that retrieval necessarily returns [].