Everyone is really into RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) right now. People use vector databases, embedding models, semantic similarity scores, and all the usual tools. But here is the surprising truth: if you are building AI tools that generate content, you probably do not need RAG at all.​ You spent months handling thousands of documents like PDFs, Word files, and research papers for an AI content generation service. The real problem was not finding the right document. The real problem was how to give a 50-page document to a language model that can only read a limited amount of text at once, without spending too much money on API calls or losing the important parts of the document. The solutions I found online were either: Too complex (full RAG pipelines with vector stores)Too naive (just truncate at N tokens)Too academic (semantic embeddings for every sentence) Too complex (full RAG pipelines with vector stores) Too naive (just truncate at N tokens) Too academic (semantic embeddings for every sentence) What I needed was something in between. Something practical. Why Not Just Use RAG? RAG is designed to answer questions about documents. You embed chunks, store them in a vector database, then retrieve the most relevant chunks based on a query. But content generation is different. You're not answering a question, you're transforming the entire document into something new. You need: The document's structure (headings, sections)The key points (not just query-relevant snippets)The statistics and data (numbers are gold for presentations)The conclusions (often buried at the end) The document's structure (headings, sections) structure The key points (not just query-relevant snippets) key points The statistics and data (numbers are gold for presentations) statistics and data The conclusions (often buried at the end) conclusions A semantic similarity search won't find "the third paragraph that contains a compelling statistic" because there's no query to match against. The Simple Solution: Position-Based Scoring with Overlapping Windows Here's the approach that worked for me. It's embarrassingly simple, but it reduced token usage by 70-90% while preserving document quality. Step 1: Split Into Overlapping Chunks Don't split documents at arbitrary token boundaries. Use overlapping windows: # Pseudocode
chunk_size = 1000  # words
overlap = 200       # words

chunks = []
position = 0

while position < total_words:
    end = min(position + chunk_size, total_words)
    chunk_text = words[position:end]

    chunks.append({
        'text': chunk_text,
        'position': position / total_words,  # 0.0 to 1.0
    })

    position = end - overlap  # Overlap with previous chunk # Pseudocode
chunk_size = 1000  # words
overlap = 200       # words

chunks = []
position = 0

while position < total_words:
    end = min(position + chunk_size, total_words)
    chunk_text = words[position:end]

    chunks.append({
        'text': chunk_text,
        'position': position / total_words,  # 0.0 to 1.0
    })

    position = end - overlap  # Overlap with previous chunk The overlap ensures you don't lose context at chunk boundaries. If an important sentence gets split, it appears in both chunks. Step 2: Score Chunks by Position Here's the insight that changed everything: document position is a powerful signal. document position is a powerful signal Research papers, reports, and business documents follow predictable patterns: First 15%: Introduction, abstract, problem statementLast 15%: Conclusions, recommendations, key takeawaysMiddle 15-35%: Context, background, methodology First 15%: Introduction, abstract, problem statement First 15% Last 15%: Conclusions, recommendations, key takeaways Last 15% Middle 15-35%: Context, background, methodology Middle 15-35% def score_by_position(position):
    score = 0.0

    if position < 0.15:
        score += 2.0  # Introduction - usually important
    elif position > 0.85:
        score += 2.0  # Conclusion - usually important
    elif 0.15 <= position <= 0.35:
        score += 1.0  # Early middle - often key context

    return score def score_by_position(position):
    score = 0.0

    if position < 0.15:
        score += 2.0  # Introduction - usually important
    elif position > 0.85:
        score += 2.0  # Conclusion - usually important
    elif 0.15 <= position <= 0.35:
        score += 1.0  # Early middle - often key context

    return score This simple heuristic beats random sampling every time. You're not doing semantic analysis, you're exploiting document structure that authors follow unconsciously. Step 3: Score by Content Quality Position isn't everything. Add content-based signals: Statistics are gold: Statistics are gold: # Chunks with numbers + units score higher
if contains_pattern(r'\d+%|\d+\.\d+|\d{1,3}(?:,\d{3})+'):
    score += 1.5 # Chunks with numbers + units score higher
if contains_pattern(r'\d+%|\d+\.\d+|\d{1,3}(?:,\d{3})+'):
    score += 1.5 Numbers like "73% increase" or "$2.5 million" are presentation gold. They're specific, memorable, and lend credibility. Comparison language indicates analysis: Comparison language indicates analysis: if contains_words(['compared', 'versus', 'than', 'outperforms']):
    score += 0.5 if contains_words(['compared', 'versus', 'than', 'outperforms']):
    score += 0.5 When authors compare things, they're usually making a point worth keeping. Paragraph density matters: Paragraph density matters: word_count = len(chunk.split())
if 100 <= word_count <= 800:
    score += 1.0 word_count = len(chunk.split())
if 100 <= word_count <= 800:
    score += 1.0 Very short chunks are usually headers or fragments. Very long chunks are often boilerplate or verbose sections. Step 4: Filter Out Noise Academic documents are full of noise that looks like content: NOISE_PATTERNS = [
    r'\[\d+\]',              # Citation markers [1], [23]
    r'\bet\s+al\.',          # "et al." citations
    r'doi:\s*\d',            # DOI references
    r'https?://',            # URLs (often in references)
    r'ISBN\s*[\d-]+',        # ISBN numbers
    r'references\s*$',       # References section header
]

noise_count = count_matches(text, NOISE_PATTERNS)
if noise_count > 3:
    score -= 2.0  # Heavy noise - likely references section NOISE_PATTERNS = [
    r'\[\d+\]',              # Citation markers [1], [23]
    r'\bet\s+al\.',          # "et al." citations
    r'doi:\s*\d',            # DOI references
    r'https?://',            # URLs (often in references)
    r'ISBN\s*[\d-]+',        # ISBN numbers
    r'references\s*$',       # References section header
]

noise_count = count_matches(text, NOISE_PATTERNS)
if noise_count > 3:
    score -= 2.0  # Heavy noise - likely references section The references section of a research paper can be 10-20% of the document. It's useless for content generation but looks like legitimate text to naive tokenizers. Step 5: Merge and Deduplicate Because chunks overlap, you'll extract duplicate content. Handle this with simple substring matching: def is_similar(text_a, text_b, threshold=0.8):
    # Normalize
    a = normalize(text_a)  # lowercase, remove punctuation
    b = normalize(text_b)

    # Substring check
    if a in b or b in a:
        return True

    # Word overlap check
    words_a = set(a.split())
    words_b = set(b.split())

    overlap = len(words_a & words_b)
    min_len = min(len(words_a), len(words_b))

    return overlap / min_len > threshold def is_similar(text_a, text_b, threshold=0.8):
    # Normalize
    a = normalize(text_a)  # lowercase, remove punctuation
    b = normalize(text_b)

    # Substring check
    if a in b or b in a:
        return True

    # Word overlap check
    words_a = set(a.split())
    words_b = set(b.split())

    overlap = len(words_a & words_b)
    min_len = min(len(words_a), len(words_b))

    return overlap / min_len > threshold This isn't perfect, but it catches 90% of duplicates without the overhead of embedding-based similarity. The Full Pipeline Here's how it all fits together: Real-World Results After processing thousands of documents with this approach: Document TypeOriginalAfter ProcessingReductionResearch Paper (30 pages)~12,000 words~1,800 words85%Business Report (50 pages)~18,000 words~2,200 words88%Technical Manual (100 pages)~40,000 words~3,500 words91% Document TypeOriginalAfter ProcessingReductionResearch Paper (30 pages)~12,000 words~1,800 words85%Business Report (50 pages)~18,000 words~2,200 words88%Technical Manual (100 pages)~40,000 words~3,500 words91% Document TypeOriginalAfter ProcessingReduction Document TypeOriginalAfter ProcessingReduction Document Type Original After Processing Reduction Research Paper (30 pages)~12,000 words~1,800 words85%Business Report (50 pages)~18,000 words~2,200 words88%Technical Manual (100 pages)~40,000 words~3,500 words91% Research Paper (30 pages)~12,000 words~1,800 words85% Research Paper (30 pages) ~12,000 words ~1,800 words 85% Business Report (50 pages)~18,000 words~2,200 words88% Business Report (50 pages) ~18,000 words ~2,200 words 88% Technical Manual (100 pages)~40,000 words~3,500 words91% Technical Manual (100 pages) ~40,000 words ~3,500 words 91% The magic isn't just the compression, it's that the compressed version often produces better AI output because it's focused on the important content. better When This Approach Works (and When It Doesn't) Works well for: Works well for: Structured documents (reports, papers, presentations)Content generation tasks (summaries, slides, blog posts)Documents under 100 pagesEnglish-language documents with standard formatting Structured documents (reports, papers, presentations) Content generation tasks (summaries, slides, blog posts) Documents under 100 pages English-language documents with standard formatting Doesn't work well for: Doesn't work well for: Q&A systems (use RAG instead)Highly technical documents where everything mattersDocuments without clear structure (transcripts, chat logs)Multi-language documents with mixed formatting Q&A systems (use RAG instead) Highly technical documents where everything matters Documents without clear structure (transcripts, chat logs) Multi-language documents with mixed formatting Why Simpler Is Often Better I could have built a complex pipeline with: Sentence embeddings using transformer modelsVector similarity scoringLLM-based chunk importance classificationMultiple passes with different extraction strategies Sentence embeddings using transformer models Vector similarity scoring LLM-based chunk importance classification Multiple passes with different extraction strategies But here's what I learned: complexity has a cost beyond compute. complexity has a cost beyond compute Complex systems are harder to debug. When your AI generates garbage, was it the embedding model? The similarity threshold? The chunk size? The retrieval query? With position-based scoring, debugging is simple: print the chunk scores, see what got selected, adjust the weights. The logic is transparent and the failure modes are predictable. Key Takeaways Position is a powerful signal. Documents have structure. Exploit it.Not all text is equal. Statistics, comparisons, and conclusions carry more weight than filler paragraphs.Noise detection is crucial. Citations and references can be 10-20% of academic documents.Overlap prevents information loss. A 20% overlap catches content that straddles chunk boundaries.Simple deduplication works. Substring matching and word overlap catch most duplicates.RAG is for retrieval, not generation. Different problems need different solutions. Position is a powerful signal. Documents have structure. Exploit it. Position is a powerful signal. Not all text is equal. Statistics, comparisons, and conclusions carry more weight than filler paragraphs. Not all text is equal. Noise detection is crucial. Citations and references can be 10-20% of academic documents. Noise detection is crucial. Overlap prevents information loss. A 20% overlap catches content that straddles chunk boundaries. Overlap prevents information loss. Simple deduplication works. Substring matching and word overlap catch most duplicates. Simple deduplication works. RAG is for retrieval, not generation. Different problems need different solutions. RAG is for retrieval, not generation. The best system isn't the most sophisticated one, it's the one that solves your specific problem with the minimum necessary complexity. I've been processing documents for AI applications for the past year, learning what works through trial and error. If you're building something similar, I'd love to hear about your approach, especially if you've found something simpler that works even better. I've been processing documents for AI applications for the past year, learning what works through trial and error. If you're building something similar, I'd love to hear about your approach, especially if you've found something simpler that works even better.

This story contains AI-generated text. The author has used AI either for research, to generate outlines, or write the text itself. 

Intelligent Document Processing: A Simple Chunking Strategy for AI Content Generation

About Author

Comments

TOPICS

THIS ARTICLE WAS FEATURED IN

Related Stories

Building SlideMaker as a Solo Developer: The Real-Time AI System Powering 500+ Daily Presentations

The Noonification: How Often Do NFTs Pass The Howey Test? (1/13/2023)

Darwin's Hybrid Intelligence to Align AI & Human Goals for Startups & VCs

The Noonification: White Man (11/26/2022)

The Noonification: The Metaverse is a Sh*tshow (11/2/2022)

100 Days of AI Day 1: From Newsletter to Podcast, Leveraging AI for Audio Transformation

Building SlideMaker as a Solo Developer: The Real-Time AI System Powering 500+ Daily Presentations

The Noonification: How Often Do NFTs Pass The Howey Test? (1/13/2023)

Darwin's Hybrid Intelligence to Align AI & Human Goals for Startups & VCs

The Noonification: White Man (11/26/2022)

The Noonification: The Metaverse is a Sh*tshow (11/2/2022)

100 Days of AI Day 1: From Newsletter to Podcast, Leveraging AI for Audio Transformation

Light-Mode

Classic

Newspaper

Minty

Dark-Mode

Neon Noir

Minty

HN StartUps