DEV Community

Wolf Zhang
Wolf Zhang

Posted on

A five-minute test for any RAG assistant: two documents with conflicting dates

Every RAG demo looks great with clean inputs. The failure mode that matters in production is quieter: the system answering fluently from the wrong evidence, or inventing the missing piece, and nobody noticing because the output reads fine.

A regression suite with fixed questions (LLM-as-judge grading, retrieval-vs-generation failure tagging) is worth building — but it has a blind spot: it measures the cases you thought to ask. Here is a five-minute manual test that complements it.

The setup

Write two synthetic documents about the same event:

  • Document A (older): "The policy change takes effect on March 1. Applies to the Standard plan only."
  • Document B (current): "The policy change takes effect on March 15. Applies to all plans."

Upload both, then ask questions whose correct answer depends on which document is current:

  • "When does the policy change take effect?" — should cite Document B.
  • "Does it apply to the Basic plan?" — only answerable from Document B, and only if the tool tells you which document it used.

What to check

  1. Current source citation. Does the answer cite Document B, or blend the two dates into something plausible?
  2. Missing-fact honesty. Ask about something neither document covers ("who approved the change?"). A good system says it is not in the documents. A bad one interpolates a name.
  3. Access boundaries. If the tool supports per-user or per-file permissions, remove Document B and re-ask. The answer should degrade honestly, not silently fall back to Document A as if it were still authoritative.

The step most people skip

Swap the dates and re-run: now Document A says March 15 and Document B says March 1. If the tool was passing by memorizing file order or filenames, it fails now. A system that genuinely resolves currency survives the swap.

Why this matters more than accuracy scores

The failures this test catches are generation-side failures that look correct — fluent answer, wrong provenance. They are invisible in retrieval metrics and dangerous in real workflows (meeting notes, policy Q&A, client research), where a confident wrong date costs more than an honest "not found".

Where I use it

I maintain a small public collection of open-source knowledge-base and RAG candidates (RAGFlow, AnythingLLM, and others) and run this test across them as a first-pass filter before anything deeper:

https://useaistation.com/githubai/collections/enterprise-knowledge/

Free to browse, no sign-in or install. It is a discovery aid — not a benchmark and not a license audit; passing this test is necessary, never sufficient.


Disclosure: I build AI Open Source Radar, the site hosting the collection linked above. This article was prepared with AI assistance; the test method is the point, and it works with any RAG tool you already use.

Top comments (0)