People ask for information in different ways. One visitor pastes a product code; another describes a problem without knowing its name. Hybrid retrieval combines keyword and semantic approaches, but the right configuration depends on your content and questions. Ask the agency to demonstrate retrieval evidence before judging the final fluent answer.
Related service: Custom AI chatbot development- 01Collect query types
- 02Label useful sources
- 03Run retrieval alternatives
- 04Review misses and tradeoffs
SECTION 01
Include the vocabulary users actually bring
Create groups for exact codes, abbreviations, common synonyms, informal descriptions and ambiguous questions. Include unsupported queries so the search does not always appear successful by returning something. Label useful passages and the role allowed to see them; relevance without permission is not an acceptable match.
Microsoft's hybrid-search documentation describes combining text and vector results and notes the usefulness of keyword search for exact terms. Treat that as a reason to test, not a guarantee that every combined configuration wins. Record filters, ranking settings and source versions so comparisons use the same conditions.
SECTION 02
Illustrative example: a parts-support assistant
A technician asks for the installation notes for part AX-204. Another asks about a bracket that fits a narrow corner without knowing the code. The first query needs the exact product reference; the second needs a conceptual match that still preserves compatibility restrictions.
In a review, the agency shows the passages returned by each approach. A semantic match to a similar but incompatible part is marked wrong even if its description reads naturally. If the combined results improve the informal question but bury the exact-code document, the ranking needs adjustment or a deliberate query-specific path. No answer-writing polish should conceal that tradeoff.
SECTION 03
Agree what improvement means
Measure whether the necessary evidence appears within the result set actually passed to the model. Also inspect distracting passages, latency and the effort of maintaining additional indexes or metadata. Microsoft's RAG evaluation guide separates retrieval design from generation, which helps locate the source of a failure.
Request the test questions, relevance judgments, configuration and known weak cases at handoff. Recheck access filters across all retrieval branches. A narrow catalog may work well with deterministic lookup and ordinary search; a mixed knowledge collection may benefit from hybrid retrieval. Choose on observed task performance rather than buying an unnecessarily elaborate search stack.
SECTION 04
Frequently asked questions
Is hybrid search always better?
No. Results depend on content, queries, filters and ranking. Compare it against simpler baselines using your own accepted evidence.
Should we evaluate only the final answer?
No. Inspect retrieved passages separately so a generation mistake and a retrieval miss do not receive the same proposed fix.
Can semantic search replace exact product lookup?
Not where exact identity matters. Keep authoritative identifier matching or verify the selected record before presenting compatibility or taking action.
PRIMARY REFERENCES
Sources and further reading
These references cover the standards, platforms, or published prices discussed in the guide. Worked examples and checklists are our editorial guidance.
- Hybrid search overviewMicrosoft Learn
- Design and evaluate a RAG solutionMicrosoft Learn
EDITORIAL METHOD
About this guide
We use AI to assist with drafting and editing. Catapult AI Work is responsible for the published content. Examples illustrate possible approaches; they are not client case studies unless identified as such.
Budget examples are not Catapult package prices. Check linked provider pages for current fees and plan limits before making a purchase.
Read the editorial policy