Source Quality, Context Priority, and Hallucination Control for RAG

Score the source before the chunk

Good chunking cannot make a weak source accurate. Score primariness, freshness, method, coverage, correction history, and conflicts at source level first.

Make the method repeatable by recording input format, assumptions, and acceptance criteria before processing. ByteQuant demos are starting points; test representative good, malformed, and boundary cases in the real workflow.

Before using this step on real data, write the expected result for a small synthetic example. Test missing fields, malformed input, oversized content, and conflicting information as well as the happy path. In the output, clearly separate what came directly from the input, what was inferred by a rule, and what still requires human approval.

• Start small with synthetic data.
• Write failure and stop conditions.
• Keep source, date, and method notes with the output.

Allocate context by evidence value

Mandatory policy and contract text should outrank long conversation history. Score token cost with recency and necessity, removing low-value repetition while preserving exceptions and definitions.

Separate direct observation, tool inference, and human decision in the result. A score or green badge is not proof of identity, security, legal compliance, or source accuracy.

Before using this step on real data, write the expected result for a small synthetic example. Test missing fields, malformed input, oversized content, and conflicting information as well as the happy path. In the output, clearly separate what came directly from the input, what was inferred by a rule, and what still requires human approval.

• Start small with synthetic data.
• Write failure and stop conditions.
• Keep source, date, and method notes with the output.

Test claim-to-source linkage

Every important sentence should point to a supporting passage, source date, and scope. Put insufficient evidence in the output contract rather than inviting the model to fill gaps.

Plan the flow in Local Agent and version it in Workstation. Review every node output before handoff, remove sensitive data, and verify high-impact decisions with an independent source or qualified reviewer.

Before using this step on real data, write the expected result for a small synthetic example. Test missing fields, malformed input, oversized content, and conflicting information as well as the happy path. In the output, clearly separate what came directly from the input, what was inferred by a rule, and what still requires human approval.

• Start small with synthetic data.
• Write failure and stop conditions.
• Keep source, date, and method notes with the output.

Applied walkthrough: from input to verified handoff

Begin with a safe sample and remove personal data, secrets, or licensed material. Apply the three checks below in order, compare every stage with the previous version, and continue only when an explicit acceptance criterion passes. If a tool raises a warning, reduce the input, record the uncertainty, and return to the last verified stage instead of forcing the result forward.

Score the source before the chunk → Allocate context by evidence value → Test claim-to-source linkage

• Record the starting input and expected result together.
• After each stage, note changed fields and the reason for the change.
• Retest the final output with a different example and an independent reviewer.
• Keep source, date, version, and known limitations with the shared artifact.

Quality gate, failure path, and safe delivery

Syntax validity alone is not enough for delivery. Review content integrity, accessibility, language consistency, privacy risk, and rollback separately. For high-impact financial, legal, security, or identity decisions, treat ByteQuant output as a pre-check and do not present it as a final determination without a current primary source or qualified reviewer.

• Is the success criterion observable and repeatable?
• Do empty, malformed, oversized, and adversarial inputs stop safely?
• Are result, tool inference, and human decision clearly separated?
• Were sensitive data, external links, and license conditions checked once more?
• Is a change log and rollback copy available?