What the documents look like
Refund-only dispute handling has no returned-goods warehouse step, so the evidence weight sits on dispatch, delivery confirmation and item value. Everyday materials include refund-only applications, dispatch proof, delivery confirmation and appeal material. Sources span the platform after-sales backend, carrier tracking, customer service chat and warehouse outbound records. These materials frequently appear in mixed Chinese and English, and within one dispute the dispatch proof and the delivery confirmation may be issued in different languages. Document parsing and chunking must turn a multilingual file into segments that can be traced back to the source text, and must let a Chinese question reach an English passage. Semantic retrieval offers cross-language understanding, so a Chinese question can match an English knowledge point; this property directly determines whether multilingual material is usable.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Segmentation needs to preserve structural and semantic completeness. A dispatch proof contains an order number, a sending party, recipient information and a delivery status. If the delivery status is split away from the order it constrains, a retrieval hit cannot show which order that status belongs to. One group of source data can map to multiple vectors; once several indexes are added to a longer text, a hit on any one of them recalls that data. The smallest search unit is the library; a collection only classifies data and does not affect search results. Full-text retrieval suits numbers, models and proper nouns, semantic retrieval suits natural-language phrasing, and hybrid retrieval merges the two paths through RRF. Minimum relevance takes effect only in semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used, and it is a filter threshold.
Hypothetical paper exercise: a cross-border store after-sales specialist receives a refund-only application and plans to check the material and draft a handover request. The source text supplied for checking reads: "Order A-4471, dispatch date 12 March, carrier tracking shows delivered on 18 March, recipient signature field blank." A second English-language item reads: "Refund request R-2098 submitted on 20 March, reason: item not received." The draft sentence to be judged is: "This order has been delivered, so the refund-only application should be rejected." The subjects needed for the judgment are order A-4471 and application R-2098, the object is the delivery fact, the state is the blank recipient signature field, and the effective scope is that order and that application. A blank recipient signature field is an evidence gap; the draft sentence treats a tracking delivery event as a complete delivery fact, and that reading is not supported.
Configuration and implementation checks
The table lists only settings documented in the official material or implementation check items relevant to document parsing and chunking on this page. The values are starting points for this hypothetical exercise, used for paper comparison, and do not represent official defaults.
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting point for this exercise | Reason for the choice and comparison object |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Material contains order numbers and natural-language dispute descriptions, so both exact hits and semantically close content must be covered |
| Reference limit | Hypothetical starting point of 3000 tokens for this exercise | Reference volume is controlled by tokens; compare recalled segment length for the same question under different segmentations |
| Minimum relevance | Hypothetical starting point of 0.4 for this exercise | Takes effect only in semantic retrieval or result reranking; compare candidate counts before and after filtering |
| Question optimization | Switched on for this exercise | Completes questions when a follow-up contains a reference; compare recalled content for the same follow-up with and without it |
| Segmentation method | Segment by material structure | Compare fixed-length splitting against splitting by proof fields to see whether delivery status stays in the same segment as the order |
| Index state | Check after training completes | A successful upload does not mean the index has updated; compare upload time against training completion state |
Three common errors
- Treating a tracking delivery event as a complete delivery fact. The input is the source line "recipient signature field blank", the comparison object is the draft sentence "This order has been delivered", and the observable result is that the signing subject is not stated, so the draft sentence is not supported.
- Treating a successful upload as an updated retrieval index. The input is the upload action after a material change, the comparison object is the training and index state, and the observable result is that while the index state is unconfirmed, retrieval results may still come from the old segmentation.
- Treating minimum relevance as a permission or entity filter. The input is the minimum relevance setting, the comparison object is whether candidate content belongs to the target order, and the observable result is that this value only filters low-relevance results and does not exclude unrelated orders or unauthorized records.
How to verify the setup
- Segmentation completeness check. The input is the source text "Order A-4471, dispatch date 12 March, carrier tracking shows delivered on 18 March, recipient signature field blank". Compare whether the retrieved segment contains both the order number and the delivery status. The condition is met when the two appear in the same segment.
- Multilingual retrieval check. The input is the Chinese question "delivery situation for order A-4471". Compare whether the recalled content includes the English item "Refund request R-2098 submitted on 20 March". The condition is met when a Chinese question reaches an English passage; when it does not, record the gap without inferring a cause.
- Empty-result handling check. The input is a paper retrieval term with an empty list returned. Compare whether the downstream design handles it as an empty result. The condition is met when the downstream does not treat the empty result as a confirmed fact. Retrieval and forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.