What the documents look like
Sample inspection for livestream selling happens before a broadcast. The question being answered is whether a product can be sold and whether it suits on-camera demonstration. The working materials are sample evaluation forms, quality inspection reports, supplier qualification files, and prohibited-item lists. These arrive from supplier submissions, testing-agency reports, platform negative catalogues, and historical return-rate records, and they are refreshed weekly and per item.
The four document types do not share a shape. A sample evaluation form is mostly fields and a conclusion. A quality inspection report carries an identifier, a model designation, tested items, and a verdict. A supplier qualification file carries a legal entity name and a validity period. A prohibited-item list is largely an enumeration of entries. Materials frequently mix Chinese, English, and other languages in one batch. When a conditional clause is separated from the conclusion it constrains, the retrieved fragment loses the basis for any judgement.
Constraints at the document chunking step
A knowledge base is made of libraries, collections, and data. The smallest search unit is the library; collections only classify data and do not affect search results. One data record can map to several vectors, and the indexes field holds an array of vector IDs. Vectors live in a vector field in PostgresSQL, while original data lives in the dataset.datas table in MongoDB. Retrieval recalls vectors first, then fetches original data by vector ID; records that resolve to the same original data are merged and the highest score is kept.
Semantic retrieval works from vector distance and suits natural-language and cross-language matching. Full-text retrieval works from keyword hits and suits identifiers, model designations, and proper nouns. Hybrid retrieval merges both paths through RRF, and ReRank then performs a second ordering with a 0–1 score. The citation cap is measured in tokens. Minimum relevance applies only under semantic retrieval or result reranking. Retrieval is a recall process and does not enforce permissions or entity isolation.
Hypothetical paper exercise
Material text supplied for the comparison (fictional, used only for this page's exercise): "Sample identifier SP-2026-0417, supplier entity Xing'an Daily Chemical (fictional), submission date 17 April 2026. Testing-agency report identifier JC-2026-0417 concludes that the tested items meet the commissioned requirements. The supplier qualification file states a validity period ending 31 December 2026."
Draft sentence to be assessed: "Xing'an Daily Chemical holds valid qualification, and sample SP-2026-0417 can go to broadcast directly."
Configuration and implementation checks
| Configuration or check item | Setting relevant to this page | Correspondence with the sample |
|---|---|---|
| Search mode | One of semantic retrieval, full-text retrieval, hybrid retrieval | Identifier SP-2026-0417 is better served by full-text or hybrid retrieval |
| Minimum relevance | A 0–1 value, effective only under semantic retrieval or result reranking | Hypothetical starting point 0.5, used to compare against rerank scores |
| Citation cap | Measured in tokens | Keeps qualification validity and report conclusion in the same returned segment |
| Result reranking | Requires a ReRank model and must be enabled | Second ordering of report conclusions when candidates are numerous |
| Question optimisation | Coreference removal and question expansion before retrieval | Completes the subject when a sample identifier is followed up across turns |
| Training and index state | Check the actual training and index result | A successful upload does not mean retrieval has been updated |
The minimum relevance value of 0.5 is a hypothetical starting point for this exercise. It was chosen because it sits mid-range on the 0–1 scale, which makes comparison against rerank scores above and below it straightforward; it is not an official default. The token count for the citation cap depends on actual material length and no fixed number is given here.
Three common errors
- Treating a successful upload as an updated index. Upload, training, and indexing are separate stages. Assuming a new version is retrievable without checking the training state treats a submitted operation as an effective result.
- Treating a retrieval hit as an authorisation conclusion. Retrieval returns similar fragments; it does not decide whether a supplier qualification is valid or whether a sample may go to broadcast. The phrase "can go to broadcast directly" in the draft sentence exceeds the supplied material, which states only a validity period and a report conclusion.
- Splitting a conditional clause from its conclusion across chunks. If validity period, report identifier, and verdict are separated, the recalled fragment lacks the constraint and downstream reading goes wrong.
How to verify the setup
- Input the material text "Sample identifier SP-2026-0417, supplier entity Xing'an Daily Chemical (fictional)" together with the draft sentence "Xing'an Daily Chemical holds valid qualification, and sample SP-2026-0417 can go to broadcast directly." Compare whether the draft sentence shares the same entity, the same object, and the same field as the source. The source states a validity period ending 31 December 2026 and does not state a broadcast permission. Observing a conclusion absent from the source means the draft is unsupported and must be returned for an authorisation basis.
- Input the search terms "SP-2026-0417" and "testing-agency report identifier." Compare whether the returned fragment contains the identifier and the conclusion in the same segment. Observing a fragment that holds the identifier while the conclusion sits in another chunk means the chunking is incomplete and segmentation needs adjustment.
- Input an empty reference result
[]as a paper input and check whether the downstream design distinguishes an empty result from "no match." Observing the downstream treating an empty result directly as a negative conclusion means a pending-verification marker is needed. This page does not claim that a fictional rule retrieval would necessarily return[].