What the documents look like
Producer export tax processes combine the offset of domestic sales tax with the export refund calculation. The declaration detail schedule, export contracts, the sales subsidiary ledger and customs export declarations must corroborate one another within the same period scope. Cross-border materials frequently carry Chinese and English clauses, overseas customer names, and explanatory notes on differences between the free-on-board price and the customs declared amount.
For document chunking, this means a condition, its explanation and the content it constrains belong in the same chunk. A customs declaration's transaction terms and another contract's amount clause should not merge into one block. Chunking quality directly affects whether a term such as a transaction mode can be retrieved together with the clause that defines it.
Data updates monthly in this category. Upload success, completed training and index creation are distinct states; a newly uploaded contract is not automatically retrievable.
Constraints at the document chunking step
Original data and vector indexes are stored separately. The dataset.datas table holds original data information and an indexes field recording corresponding vector IDs, and one group of data can map to multiple vectors. Search operates at the library level; a collection only classifies data and does not affect search results. Semantic similarity does not carry permission or enterprise isolation, and a retrieval result does not constitute authorization.
The reference limit is measured in tokens, not top k, because chunk lengths differ widely in mixed knowledge bases. The minimum relevance value is a 0-1 number that applies only under semantic search or when result reranking is used. It filters low-relevance results and is not a permission filter.
Full-text search suits identifiers, models and proper nouns. Semantic search suits natural-language clauses. Hybrid search uses both and merges results through RRF; reranking then reorders candidates when a ReRank model is available and enabled. The overall retrieval flow may combine question optimization, semantic recall, full-text recall, image description or image vector recall, RRF merging and reranking, but optional paths do not execute on every request.
Hypothetical paper test case: a producer enterprise tax accountant organizes a batch of export tax exemption and offset materials in March 2025. The batch contains one export contract whose original text reads "The transaction mode of goods under this contract is FOB, and the buyer shall issue an irrevocable letter of credit 30 days before shipment," one sales subsidiary ledger entry reading "February 2025 self-produced export sales amount registered at FOB price," and one draft sentence awaiting judgment: "The transaction mode of goods under this contract is CIF." The verification target is whether the transaction mode field in the draft matches the contract original text. No real customer, company or identity number is used.
Configuration and implementation checks
| Verification item | Setting or action | Relation to the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | Semantic search, full-text search or hybrid search | Transaction mode is a proper expression; full-text or hybrid search can first locate the contract clause |
| Reference limit | Reference limit measured in tokens | A hypothetical starting value is set to cover the relevant contract and ledger paragraphs, then compared with actual result length before adjustment |
| Minimum relevance | 0-1 value, effective only under semantic search or result reranking | Filters low-relevance fragments; not a permission filter |
| Question optimization | Coreference resolution and question expansion before retrieval | For a single clear question, whether to enable it depends on observed effect |
| Result reranking | Second ordering when a ReRank model is available and enabled | Used to improve text relevance when candidates are numerous |
| Training and index status | Check actual training and index creation for the materials | Upload success does not mean retrieval has updated |
The hypothetical starting value for the reference limit has no official default status. It is chosen to cover the contract and ledger paragraphs relevant to the sample, and is compared against the actual token length of retrieved content.
Three common errors
- Treating upload success as retrieval already updated. Input: the newly uploaded contract. Compare: upload status against training and index status. Observable result: whether retrieval can recall that contract paragraph.
- Treating semantic similarity as a permission or enterprise isolation mechanism. Input: similar clauses from different entities. Compare: recalled content against the original data ownership. Observable result: whether records outside the target scope appear.
- Treating RRF as an independent switch that can be turned on. Input: a hybrid search request. Compare: the semantic and full-text result paths. Observable result: whether the merged ordering is jointly determined by multiple paths.
How to verify the setup
- Input the sample contract original text and the draft sentence "The transaction mode of goods under this contract is CIF." Compare the draft sentence against the original contract's transaction mode field. When the two values are mutually exclusive, record a contradiction. When the original does not state the field, record it as pending verification. This is a paper check; no test has been run.
- Input the sales subsidiary ledger entry "registered at FOB price" and the contract "transaction mode is FOB." Compare the same field within the same period. When values agree, record as supported. When only the stage is related, record as unsupported.
- Input one explicit search term and observe whether returned content can be traced back to the original text and version. For an empty result, a clearly labelled paper input can be used to check downstream design; do not claim that a fictional rule must return empty. For libraries using different vector models, first check identifiers and exclude non-matching ones; do not run cross-model retrieval to compare missed recalls.
Missing evidence remains missing. A pending review does not demonstrate absence of operating authority. An unsigned termination is not a completed termination. An offered option is not execution. Retrieval and forms do not constitute authorization.