chunking

The two knobs that make or break a RAG system, and the ones candidates hand-wave. The signal is tuning chunking against recall and knowing exactly what dense retrieval misses that BM25 catches. Here is the reasoning, not the rules of thumb.

Chunking quietly sets the ceiling on RAG quality, and 'split every 500 tokens' leaves recall on the table. The signal is knowing the strategy families and the parent-child trick that decouples retrieval size from context size.

Garbage parsing means garbage retrieval, and naive PDF text extraction destroys tables and reading order. The signal is fixing the parser, not the retriever. Here is the answer.

Small chunks match precisely but starve the LLM of context; big chunks have context but match badly. Parent-child retrieval refuses to pick. The signal is decoupling what you match on from what you feed the model.

A chunk embedded in isolation forgets which document, section, and entity it came from, so it retrieves poorly. Contextual retrieval writes that context back in before indexing. The signal is fixing retrieval at index time, not query time.

Fixed-size chunking splits a coherent idea mid-thought; semantic chunking splits on meaning. The signal is naming the methods (structure-aware, embedding-similarity, LLM-based) and the tradeoffs that decide which one to ship.

Late chunking flips the usual order of operations to fix the lost-context problem without a single extra LLM call. The whole signal is which step happens first. Here is the answer.

When the right answer isn't even in the top-50, the generator can't save you. Low recall has a short list of usual suspects. Here is the order to check them so you fix the cause, not a symptom.

Everyone can recite the chunking tradeoff. Far fewer can write the splitter, keep the offsets a citation needs, and answer the question that kills the fixed splitter: what happens to a fact that straddles a boundary.