What the documents look like
Franchise supervision records come from two sides at once. Headquarters produces contracts, inspection checklists, rectification notices and display standards; franchisees receive them and respond through the supervision app, the franchise system and store photographs. The same display standard may exist as a Chinese version and a local-language version, and a franchise contract may be signed in two languages. Weekly and monthly update rhythms apply to these materials.
Document parsing and chunking therefore handles the same kind of record in different languages and layouts. The chunking result determines whether a retrieval request can connect one store, one period and one status to the clause or inspection record that belongs to it. A rectification requirement that is split away from the store, deadline and status it constrains cannot be judged after retrieval. Cross-language semantic retrieval can match a Chinese question to an English clause, but the chunk must still preserve the document identity and version that allow the clause to be traced back to its source.
Constraints at the document chunking step
When multilingual materials enter one knowledge base, chunking must keep the original text traceable. A clause and the conditions attached to it belong together. The same set of original data can map to several vector indexes, which allows a long clause to carry more than one index. Adding indexes does not change the original data. Retrieval scores take the highest score when several vectors point to the same original record, the citation limit is controlled by tokens, and the minimum relevance value applies only during semantic retrieval or when result reranking is used. Hybrid retrieval merges routes through RRF, reranking requires a model and is enabled by settings, and image retrieval requires image input and the corresponding model capability. These routes do not all run on every request.
Retrieval is not authorization. A supervisor who sees a contract inside a retrieval scope has not thereby confirmed that the contract is signed, effective or approved for execution. Forms collect values; business verification, approval, database writes and external synchronization each need their own downstream implementation.
Hypothetical paper exercise sample for comparison. The source text to be checked is: "Franchise contract Appendix 3: Party A authorizes Party B to use the brand identity at the XX Road store; the authorization period runs from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024. Rectification Notice No. 07 states: the refrigerated display temperature record at this store is missing and must be completed by 15 March 2024." One draft sentence to be judged is: "As of March 2024 the brand authorization for this store had ended, and the rectification was complete." This sample tests whether chunking keeps the authorization period, the rectification deadline and the completion status distinguishable.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration item | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise | Reason and comparison method |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Hybrid retrieval | Contract numbers and natural-language questions both occur; compare semantic retrieval against full-text retrieval for each |
| Minimum relevance | 0.3 | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise; compare with 0.5 and observe whether unrelated fragments decrease |
| Citation limit | 2000 tokens | Hypothetical starting value for this exercise; compare with 1000 and observe whether clause context stays complete |
| Question optimization | Enabled | Test coreference removal in multi-turn follow-ups; compare with the disabled state |
| Result reranking | Enabled | Test second-pass ordering when candidates are numerous; compare score distribution with the unranked result |
| Chunking basis | Split by clause and notice number | Preserve subject, object, period and status; check whether each split part can still be traced to the source |
The values in this table are hypothetical starting points for the exercise and are used to explain the comparison method. They are not official defaults.
Three common errors
- Treating the end of an authorization period as termination of the whole contract. Appendix 3 states an authorization period ending 31 December 2024, while the draft sentence says the brand authorization had ended as of March 2024. The value in the same field, for the same subject and the same period, conflicts with the source text and is unsupported.
- Treating a rectification deadline as completion of the rectification. Notice No. 07 requires completion by 15 March 2024 and does not state whether the record was completed. The draft sentence's claim that the rectification was complete lacks evidence.
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorization or approval status. Finding contract text in a retrieval scope only shows that the text is inside that scope. Signing, effectiveness and execution are three separate facts, and a retrieval result does not confirm any of them.
How to verify the setup
- Input the hypothetical sample source text and the draft sentence, then compare the authorization period field. The source gives 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024; the draft sentence claims the authorization ended in March 2024. If the output states that the field value conflicts with the source text, the check passes. If the output accepts the draft sentence, the check fails.
- Input the source text of Rectification Notice No. 07 and compare the rectification status field. The source states only a deadline and does not state completion. If the output marks the completion status as unsupported and pending verification, the check passes. If the output states that rectification was complete, the check fails.
- Input a retrieval scope that contains inspection checklists only and no contracts, then compare the returned content. If the returned content contains no contract clause and no authorization status is inferred from it, the check passes. If contract content appears or an effective authorization is inferred, the check fails. An empty-result handoff can use the paper input
[]to check the downstream design; this does not claim that a fictional rule search must return[].
Knowledge bases built on different vector models cannot be associated with each other. Check the model identifier first and exclude any that do not match, then record what is actually observed. Do not run a cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.