What the documents look like
Permit handling occurs before customs declaration and determines whether goods may legally be imported or exported. This is the key difference from import declaration. For inventory procurement and supplier records, the material set connects purchase orders and supplier qualification files on one side to automatic import licences, dual-use item licences, contracts and product descriptions on the other. Any parsing result from these materials is later cited when determining the applicable regulatory certificate and preparing the end-use statement.
The materials update irregularly, per shipment. The same batch of goods can appear as a contract version, a product description revision and a permit application at different stages. A supplier record paragraph and an automatic import licence application can describe the same batch while carrying different document identities, versions and issuing parties.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Parsing must preserve the document identity and version that allow a chunk to be traced back to its source. Chunking follows the structure of the permit material itself; conditions, statements and the content they constrain stay together. Original data and retrieval indexes are distinct, and one set of original data can map to multiple indexes. Semantic retrieval and the minimum relevance score affect recall and filtering of similar content; they do not perform permission or entity isolation, and retrieval results do not constitute authorization.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample. The supplier record paragraph reads: "This batch of bearings, model 6205-2RS, quantity 800 sets, for supporting motor production, contract number HX-2024-0117, delivery within 30 days of signing." A separate automatic import licence application states: "Applied quantity 800 sets, commodity code 8482102000, purpose: production support." The draft handover request to be assessed is: "Merge the above contract and application into one data chunk for joint retrieval by procurement and customs." The sample subjects are the supplier and the applying enterprise; the object is the same batch of bearings; the state is contract signed and permit application pending review; the effective scope is quantity 800 sets with the corresponding commodity code.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical trial starting point | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Model 6205-2RS and the commodity code are exact queries, while natural-language questions need semantic recall; search the same sample by number and by question and compare hit paragraphs |
| Minimum relevance | 0.3 | This value takes effect only in semantic retrieval or with result reranking; use it as a starting point to observe whether low-relevance fragments are filtered, comparing candidate paragraphs against the unfiltered return |
| Reference cap | Measured in tokens, set to 800 for this trial | The documentation states the cap is controlled in tokens; sample paragraphs vary in length, so compare against 400 tokens to see whether key conditional sentences are truncated |
| Question optimization | Enabled | A follow-up such as "what is the purpose of this batch" requires coreference resolution; compare recalled paragraphs against the same follow-up with the option disabled |
| Result reranking | ReRank enabled | Hybrid retrieval produces a wide range; the rerank score can be used for filtering, so compare candidate order against vector-score ordering alone |
| Index construction | Multiple indexes on one set of original data | The documentation states one set of data can map to multiple vectors; index the contract paragraph and the application paragraph separately and check whether both can be recalled |
Three common errors
- Merging the contract paragraph and the application paragraph into a single chunk splits quantity 800 sets and the commodity code across different vectors, so a search for "8482102000" recalls only the application paragraph and the contract paragraph is missing. Check: input the commodity code, compare whether the returned paragraph contains both the contract number and the applied quantity, and observe whether the two fields fall within the same recall result.
- Treating the minimum relevance score as a permission filter and assuming a higher value excludes unauthorized supplier records. Check: input an unauthorized supplier name, compare whether the record still appears in the returned results, and confirm that the relevance setting does not change entity scope.
- Treating a successful upload as an updated retrieval state without checking the actual training and index status. Check: change the sample quantity to 900 sets, upload again, search with the same question, compare whether the returned content still shows 800 sets, and record the training state.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample text and the draft handover request, compare whether the returned paragraph retains the contract number, quantity and commodity code, and observe whether all three appear in the same recall result. If only some fields appear, record this as incomplete chunking.
- Use "purpose of this batch of bearings" as input, compare recalled paragraphs with question optimization enabled and disabled, and observe whether the sentence "for supporting motor production" is hit. If it is not hit, record that question optimization did not take effect.
- Use a paper input of an empty result set to check the downstream design, and observe the output form when no candidates exist. This check does not assert that any fictional rule retrieval necessarily returns an empty set.