RAG is a Data Problem Pretending to Be AI

The hype around Retrieval-Augmented Generation makes it sound like incantation: feed your documents to an LLM, watch it conjure perfect answers from the ether. But RAG isn't magic. It's sophisticated data plumbing wearing a tuxedo. Strip away the vector embeddings and semantic search marketing, and you're left with a system that lives or dies on whether it can find the right paragraph in a haystack of PDFs, Confluence pages, and Slack threads that nobody's organized in three years. The AI part—the part everyone fixates on—works fine. Language models are shockingly good at their narrow job: take input tokens, emit plausible continuations. They'll weave coherent prose from whatever context you shove into their window. The catastrophic failure happens upstream, in the retrieval pipeline nobody wants to talk about at conferences. Your vector database fetched the wrong chunks. Your BM25 ranker prioritized boilerplate over substance. Your chunking strategy severed a critical explanation across a boundary. The LLM never stood a chance. This is where enterprise RAG implementations fracture. Not in the model. In the data. The Retrieval Gauntlet Consider what actually happens when a user types "What's our refund policy for enterprise customers?" into your shiny new AI assistant. The query hits an embedding model—probably text-embedding-ada-002 or some in-house variant—that maps those words into a 1536-dimensional vector. That vector then searches your index for similar vectors, pulling back the top-k chunks (usually k=5 to k=20, depending on how much context budget you're willing to burn). text-embedding-ada-002 Already you've made assumptions. You assumed semantic similarity in embedding space correlates with relevance. Sometimes it does. Often it doesn't. A document about "enterprise customer success stories" might embed closer to your query than the actual policy document if the policy is written in dry legalese. Cosine similarity doesn't understand genre, or authority, or the difference between a draft and the canonical version. I've debugged systems where the official security policy scored 0.61 while a random customer testimonial mentioning "enterprise security features" scored 0.68. The retrieval surfaced the testimonial. The LLM generated an answer about security commitments based on marketing copy, not enforceable policy. Even if you retrieve the right document, you probably retrieved the wrong part of it. Most chunking strategies are blunt instruments. Fixed-size windows—512 tokens, overlap of 50—that slice text regardless of semantic boundaries. Recursive splitting that respects paragraphs but still mangles complex explanations. I've seen systems chunk a numbered list such that points 1-3 land in one chunk and points 4-7 in another, then surface only the first chunk when the user's question hinges on point 6. The LLM generates a confident answer based on incomplete information. Technically not a hallucination—it faithfully represented what it saw—but functionally useless. document part Hybrid search helps. Combining dense retrieval (vectors) with sparse retrieval (BM25, keyword matching) catches what pure semantic search misses. If your policy document uses the exact phrase "refund policy" but embeds strangely due to surrounding legalese, BM25 will still yank it to the surface based on term frequency. You fuse the rankings—reciprocal rank fusion is popular, though weighted combinations work too—and hope the right chunks float up. P.S: Hope is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The problem compounds when you consider that most enterprise knowledge bases are archaeological sites, not living documents. Layers of outdated material, orphaned drafts, deprecated APIs, retired products. Your vector store doesn't know that the 2019 pricing doc is obsolete unless you explicitly encode temporal metadata and filter on it. Without that, retrieval becomes a temporal lottery. Will the user get current information or something from three product versions ago? Depends on which embedded closer to the query. When Retrieval Fails Quietly The insidious failure mode isn't the query that returns nothing. Modern vector stores rarely return truly empty results; they'll surface something, even if the cosine similarity is 0.3 and the match is garbage. The failure is the query that returns plausible-but-wrong context. something User asks about Q3 revenue projections. System retrieves a slide deck from Q2 that mentions "projected growth" in passing. LLM synthesizes an answer using those stale numbers. Nobody notices until the CFO asks why the AI is citing figures that were revised two months ago. This happens because the retrieval layer has no notion of temporal validity. It doesn't know that newer documents supersede older ones unless you explicitly encode that—and most systems don't, because it requires metadata schemas, update hooks, document versioning, all the boring infrastructure that doesn't demo well. Or consider negation and conditionality, the twin killers of naive RAG. A user asks "Can I export data to competitor platforms?" The retrieval pulls back a chunk that says "You can export data to approved platforms listed in Appendix C." Sounds definitive. But Appendix C, which lives in a separate chunk that scored lower and didn't make the top-k cutoff, explicitly excludes competitor platforms. The LLM never sees that exclusion. It answers based on the truncated context. Confident. Wrong. You can't prompt-engineer your way out of this. I've seen teams spend weeks tuning system prompts—"Be cautious, cite sources, admit uncertainty"—when the actual problem is that the retrieval layer handed the LLM a poisoned chalice. The model is doing exactly what it's trained to do: condition on context, generate fluently. Garbage in, fluent garbage out. Another variant: the user asks a question that has no answer in your corpus. Maybe it's about a feature you don't offer, a policy that doesn't exist, a scenario your documentation never covered. A well-designed system should recognize this gap and decline to answer. Instead, most RAG systems retrieve the closest matches—documents vaguely related by keyword overlap—and the LLM confabulates an answer from that weak signal. I watched a medical RAG system, asked about a rare genetic condition not in its database, retrieve general genetics overview material and hallucinate a plausible-sounding but entirely fabricated clinical presentation. The chunks it retrieved weren't wrong, exactly. They just weren't relevant. The LLM filled in the gaps with statistically likely tokens that happened to be medically inaccurate. closest This is the "silent failure" problem. The system doesn't crash. It doesn't throw an error. It returns an answer that looks legitimate—proper formatting, confident tone, plausible technical vocabulary—but rests on a foundation of irrelevant or partial retrieval. Users trust it because they trust the AI brand, because the interface is polished, because the output is fluent. Then they make decisions based on hallucinated information. The Chunking Knot Chunking deserves its own circle of hell. There's no universal answer. Too small and you fragment meaning; too large and you dilute relevance with noise. Academic papers want different treatment than API docs, which want different treatment than customer support tickets. I've debugged systems where someone set chunk size to 128 tokens "for performance." Great for latency, disastrous for comprehension. A technical explanation of how asynchronous replication handles conflict resolution got chopped into five chunks, none of which made sense in isolation. The retrieval might surface chunk three—the part about vector clocks—but without the setup from chunks one and two explaining why you need vector clocks in the first place, the LLM hallucinates a mechanism that sounds plausible but describes a completely different algorithm. Worse, it mixes terminology from the retrieved chunk with invented context, creating a chimera that experts recognize as wrong but non-experts might believe. Semantic chunking tries to be smarter. Look for topic boundaries, split on headers, keep related sentences together. Works better for well-structured content. Falls apart on transcripts, chat logs, anything organic. I watched a system try to semantically chunk a Slack conversation about a production incident; it grouped messages by keyword similarity rather than temporal flow, so the final summary described the fix before explaining the problem, included speculation from early in the incident as if it were confirmed root cause, and omitted the actual resolution because it lived in a lower-scoring chunk. There's also the dependency problem. Technical documentation loves to say "see Section 4.2 for details" or "as discussed in the previous chapter." When you chunk that, you sever the reference. The chunk contains a pointer to information that's no longer accessible in the retrieval context. The LLM sees "refer to Section 4.2" but Section 4.2 didn't score highly enough to get retrieved. So it either ignores the reference (leaving the explanation incomplete) or hallucinates what Section 4.2 might say based on surrounding context. Some teams try to solve this with "parent-child" chunking strategies: store small chunks for retrieval precision but return the surrounding paragraph or section for context completeness. Helps, but introduces complexity. Now you're managing two representations of every document—the granular chunks in your vector index and the larger context windows you'll actually feed to the LLM. If they drift out of sync during updates, you get mismatches. I've seen systems retrieve a chunk from version N of a doc but return the parent context from version N-1 because the re-indexing job was half-finished. And then there's metadata. Each chunk needs provenance: source document, creation date, author, approval status, whatever dimensions matter for your domain. When you retrieve a chunk, you need to know whether it came from a draft someone abandoned or the official handbook. Most vector stores support metadata filtering—you can say "only retrieve chunks from approved documents created after 2024-01-01"—but you have to instrument it. That means integrating with every upstream system—Google Drive, Notion, Jira, wherever your knowledge lives—to pull those signals in real time. Or near-real-time. Or, let's be honest, in a nightly batch job that lags by 18 hours and breaks silently when someone renames a folder. Document permissions add another dimension. Your RAG system might technically have access to everything in the corporate knowledge base, but individual users don't. If you don't propagate ACLs (access control lists) through the retrieval pipeline, you'll leak information—the system answers questions using documents the user isn't authorized to see. Implementing proper permission filtering is tedious: you need to track which chunks came from which documents, which documents have which permissions, and filter retrieval results based on the authenticated user's groups and roles. Most teams skip this until a security audit catches it. Evaluation Is Where Hubris Dies How do you know if your RAG pipeline is actually working? Not vibes. Not the CEO trying it on three hand-picked queries during the demo. You need evals. Systematic, adversarial, continuously running. Retrieval metrics first: precision@k (what fraction of the top-k results are relevant), recall@k (what fraction of relevant documents appear in top-k), MRR (mean reciprocal rank—how high does the first relevant result appear), nDCG (normalized discounted cumulative gain—a weighted measure that rewards relevant results appearing early). These tell you whether the right chunks are landing in the top results. Building these requires ground truth—a dataset of queries paired with relevant documents—which means someone has to label hundreds or thousands of examples manually. Expensive. Tedious. Non-negotiable if you care about reliability. Then end-to-end metrics. Faithfulness: does the generated answer actually reflect the retrieved context, or is the model embellishing? Relevance: does the answer address the query? Answer correctness: is it factually accurate according to your knowledge base? These require LLM-as-judge setups (using a strong model like GPT-4 to evaluate outputs from your production model) or human raters. Both have failure modes. LLM judges are biased toward fluency and can miss subtle factual errors. They also inherit the evaluator model's own biases and failure modes. Human raters are expensive, slow, and inconsistent unless you invest in training and calibration. I've seen teams skip eval because "we'll monitor user feedback." User feedback is a lagging indicator that only catches egregious failures. By the time users are complaining, you've already shipped broken retrievals to thousands of queries. And most users don't complain—they just stop using the tool and quietly decide AI is overhyped. You don't see the silent abandonment in your metrics unless you're tracking engagement cohorts and watching for drop-off patterns. Better to catch failures in staging. Regression suites that run on every index rebuild. Canary deployments where you A/B test retrieval changes against known benchmarks before rolling to prod. Monitoring dashboards that surface which documents are getting retrieved most frequently (are you over-relying on a few popular docs while ignoring the long tail?), which queries return low-confidence scores (cosine similarity below some threshold), where the LLM is generating long answers from short context (a hallucination red flag—if you gave it 200 tokens and it generated 500, it's inventing). None of this is AI work. It's testing infrastructure. The same discipline you'd apply to a search engine or recommendation system. One pattern I've found useful: the "retrieval audit trail." For every query, log not just what was retrieved but what almost got retrieved—the chunks that scored just below your cutoff. Often, you'll find that position 6 or 7 contained the actually-relevant information, but your top-5 cutoff excluded it. That tells you either your ranking is broken or you need to increase k. Without this visibility, you're flying blind. almost Hybrid Architectures and the Reranker Gambit Pure vector search is rarely enough. Hybrid pipelines—combining dense and sparse retrieval, sometimes with a reranker on top—perform better in practice. The flow: query hits both a vector index and a keyword index, results merge via some fusion algorithm (reciprocal rank fusion is common, where you score each result based on its inverse rank in each retrieval method), then a cross-encoder reranks the top 50-100 candidates to pick the final top-k for the LLM. Cross-encoders are more computationally expensive than bi-encoders (the embedding models used for initial retrieval) because they jointly encode query and document rather than encoding them independently and comparing. But they're better at nuanced relevance. A bi-encoder might think "enterprise pricing" and "startup pricing" are semantically similar because they share tokens and live in the same conceptual space; a cross-encoder understands they're different tiers and ranks the exact match higher. Worth the latency cost for high-stakes applications. But rerankers introduce another dependency. You're now managing two models (embedder + reranker), two indices (vector + inverted), and orchestration logic to merge results. More surface area for bugs. I've debugged a production incident where the vector index was using text-embedding-ada-002 embeddings but someone swapped the query embedding model to a fine-tuned variant without updating the index. Queries returned nonsense because the embedding spaces didn't align—like measuring distance in meters for one set of points and feet for another. Classic type error that slipped through because vector stores don't enforce schema alignment at the API level. text-embedding-ada-002 Another failure mode: your hybrid search components drift out of sync during updates. You rebuild the vector index but forget to rebuild the BM25 index, or vice versa. Now one is searching current content and the other is searching stale content. The fusion algorithm surfaces a mix, and you get temporally inconsistent results—the vector side returns chunks from this week's documentation, the keyword side returns chunks from last month's. The LLM tries to reconcile contradictory information and either picks one arbitrarily or hedges in ways that make the answer useless. Query rewriting adds another layer. Sometimes users phrase questions in ways that don't map well to how your documents are written. "How do I make the thing go faster?" won't retrieve documentation that uses formal terminology like "performance optimization" or "latency reduction." So you rewrite the query—expand it, extract keywords, generate synonyms, maybe even use an LLM to rephrase it in several variants and run parallel retrievals. This works until it doesn't. Aggressive query expansion surfaces too many irrelevant results. Over-eager synonym matching retrieves documents about the wrong kind of "performance" (employee performance reviews instead of system performance). And if your query rewriter is itself an LLM, you've introduced a new failure mode where the rewriter hallucinates terms that don't exist in your corpus, leading to zero relevant retrievals. The Metadata Swamp Metadata filtering sounds simple in theory. In practice, it's a swamp. You want to filter by document type, creation date, approval status, department, product line, customer tier—whatever taxonomies matter for your use case. This requires: Extracting metadata from source systems (which all have different schemas)Normalizing it into a consistent format (good luck)Propagating it through your ingestion pipeline without lossStoring it alongside chunks in your vector databaseExposing filter controls to users or query logicMaintaining accuracy as documents move through workflows Extracting metadata from source systems (which all have different schemas) Normalizing it into a consistent format (good luck) Propagating it through your ingestion pipeline without loss Storing it alongside chunks in your vector database Exposing filter controls to users or query logic Maintaining accuracy as documents move through workflows Every step is a potential failure point. I've seen systems where the "approval status" metadata was accurate at ingestion time but became stale after documents went through a re-approval process. The metadata was never updated. The system kept serving chunks from "approved" documents that had been marked draft, and filtering out actually-approved content because the metadata still said "draft." Or consider multi-valued metadata. A document might be relevant to multiple products, multiple customer tiers, and multiple departments. If you naively filter for "product=X," you might exclude documents tagged with both X and Y. If you don't filter at all, you overwhelm users with irrelevant results from products they don't care about. The "correct" behavior depends on the context you often don't have. Date-based filtering is especially treacherous. Is the relevant date when the document was created? Last modified? Published? Approved? When the information it describes took effect? For a policy document, you might have a creation date in 2020, a last-modified date in 2023, an effective date in 2024, and an expiration date in 2025. Which one do you filter on? It depends on the query. "What's the current policy?" needs the effective date. "What policy changes happened last year?" needs last-modified. Good luck encoding that logic. What You'd Change Monday Morning If I inherited a broken RAG system tomorrow, here's the triage: First: audit retrieval coverage. Are the documents you need even in the index? I've seen knowledge bases missing entire categories because the ingestion pipeline couldn't parse SharePoint permissions, skipped PDFs with OCR errors, or hit rate limits on the Google Drive API and silently gave up. Build a content inventory. Map it against common query categories. If 30% of user questions are about API authentication but you don't have any API docs indexed, no amount of prompt tuning will fix that. Fill the gaps before you optimize ranking. First: audit retrieval coverage. Are the documents you need even in the index? I've seen knowledge bases missing entire categories because the ingestion pipeline couldn't parse SharePoint permissions, skipped PDFs with OCR errors, or hit rate limits on the Google Drive API and silently gave up. Build a content inventory. Map it against common query categories. If 30% of user questions are about API authentication but you don't have any API docs indexed, no amount of prompt tuning will fix that. Fill the gaps before you optimize ranking. First need Second: instrument the retrieval pipeline. Log every query, every retrieved chunk with scores, every final answer. Build dashboards that show retrieval score distributions. If 80% of your queries are returning chunks with cosine similarity below 0.6, your embeddings are trash or your content doesn't match user intent. Either way, you're hallucinating. Track which documents are never retrieved—that's either irrelevant content you can prune or important content that's embedded poorly. Track which documents are over-retrieved—maybe you have duplicate content or one doc is acting as a dumping ground for keywords. Second: instrument the retrieval pipeline. Log every query, every retrieved chunk with scores, every final answer. Build dashboards that show retrieval score distributions. If 80% of your queries are returning chunks with cosine similarity below 0.6, your embeddings are trash or your content doesn't match user intent. Either way, you're hallucinating. Track which documents are never retrieved—that's either irrelevant content you can prune or important content that's embedded poorly. Track which documents are over-retrieved—maybe you have duplicate content or one doc is acting as a dumping ground for keywords. Second Third: fix chunking for your highest-traffic content types. If most queries hit API documentation, optimize chunking for code examples and parameter tables—maybe keep complete endpoint descriptions together even if they exceed your normal chunk size. If it's HR policy, optimize for nested conditionals and cross-references—you need to preserve logical structure, not just sentence boundaries. Generic chunking strategies fail because they ignore domain structure. I've seen teams get 30-40% accuracy improvements just by switching from fixed-size chunking to domain-aware chunking for their core content. Third: fix chunking for your highest-traffic content types. If most queries hit API documentation, optimize chunking for code examples and parameter tables—maybe keep complete endpoint descriptions together even if they exceed your normal chunk size. If it's HR policy, optimize for nested conditionals and cross-references—you need to preserve logical structure, not just sentence boundaries. Generic chunking strategies fail because they ignore domain structure. I've seen teams get 30-40% accuracy improvements just by switching from fixed-size chunking to domain-aware chunking for their core content. Third Fourth: implement a fallback for low-confidence retrievals. If the best chunk scores below some threshold—say, 0.5 cosine similarity—don't generate an answer. Surface the retrieved documents and admit uncertainty. Better to say "I found these possibly-relevant documents but I'm not confident in generating an answer" than to hallucinate. Users forgive uncertainty. They don't forgive confident lies. This requires tuning the threshold on real data; too high and you refuse to answer legitimate queries, too low and you generate garbage. Fourth: implement a fallback for low-confidence retrievals. If the best chunk scores below some threshold—say, 0.5 cosine similarity—don't generate an answer. Surface the retrieved documents and admit uncertainty. Better to say "I found these possibly-relevant documents but I'm not confident in generating an answer" than to hallucinate. Users forgive uncertainty. They don't forgive confident lies. This requires tuning the threshold on real data; too high and you refuse to answer legitimate queries, too low and you generate garbage. Fourth Fifth: build eval sets from production failures. Every time a user gives negative feedback, every time someone reports an incorrect answer, dump that query-retrieval-answer triple into a regression suite. Over time you accumulate a dataset of adversarial cases that stress-test your pipeline against real failure modes, not synthetic benchmarks. Run these evals on every deployment. If accuracy regresses, block the release. This is how you avoid repeatedly shipping the same classes of failures. Fifth: build eval sets from production failures. Every time a user gives negative feedback, every time someone reports an incorrect answer, dump that query-retrieval-answer triple into a regression suite. Over time you accumulate a dataset of adversarial cases that stress-test your pipeline against real failure modes, not synthetic benchmarks. Run these evals on every deployment. If accuracy regresses, block the release. This is how you avoid repeatedly shipping the same classes of failures. Fifth Sixth: add circuit breakers for known failure modes. If a query returns no chunks above your confidence threshold, don't invoke the LLM—return a canned "no relevant documents found" response. If the retrieved chunks contradict each other (you can detect this with embedding similarity between chunks or explicit conflict detection prompts), surface the conflict rather than picking one arbitrarily. If a query is nearly identical to one from 5 seconds ago (possible bot or user mashing refresh), return the cached response. These guardrails won't catch every failure, but they prevent the most embarrassing ones. Sixth: add circuit breakers for known failure modes. If a query returns no chunks above your confidence threshold, don't invoke the LLM—return a canned "no relevant documents found" response. If the retrieved chunks contradict each other (you can detect this with embedding similarity between chunks or explicit conflict detection prompts), surface the conflict rather than picking one arbitrarily. If a query is nearly identical to one from 5 seconds ago (possible bot or user mashing refresh), return the cached response. These guardrails won't catch every failure, but they prevent the most embarrassing ones. Sixth This isn't glamorous. It won't make a good conference talk. But it's what separates RAG systems that limp along embarrassing their sponsors from ones that quietly do useful work. The Infrastructure Nobody Talks About Production RAG systems need data infrastructure that's boring to build and invisible when it works. Document ingestion pipelines that can handle schema changes from upstream systems without breaking. Metadata enrichment that extracts or infers useful signals—document type, topic, intended audience—without manual tagging. Deduplication that recognizes when the same content exists in five different formats across three different systems. Update propagation that re-indexes changed documents without rebuilding the entire corpus. Deletion handling for when documents are removed or deprecated. This is ETL (extract, transform, load) work wearing a vector database costume. You need scheduling, error handling, backfill processes, monitoring. You need to handle partial failures—what happens when 900 out of 1000 documents ingest successfully but 100 fail? Do you block the deployment? Retry forever? Surface degraded results? I've debugged systems where the ingestion job ran nightly but had been silently failing on certain file types for weeks. The vector index was slowly going stale as new documents piled up in the source systems, but nobody noticed because there was no monitoring on ingestion completeness. Users were getting outdated answers, but attribution was difficult—was it a retrieval problem, a ranking problem, or a data freshness problem? Turned out to be data freshness, but it took days to diagnose because the logs didn't surface it. Or consider the version control problem. User asks a question, gets an answer, comes back an hour later and asks the same question, gets a different answer. Why? Because between queries, someone updated a document and the re-indexing job ran. Now the same query retrieves different chunks because the content changed. This is correct behavior, but it feels broken to users. They expect consistency within a short time window. Some teams solve this with versioned indices—maintain N recent snapshots and let users pin to a version—but that multiplies your storage and compute costs. Cost is the thing nobody wants to discuss until the bill arrives. Embedding generation isn't free. If you're using OpenAI's embedding API, you're paying per token. A million documents at 500 tokens each is 500 million tokens, which at current pricing is several thousand dollars just to embed, before you even count vector storage or retrieval compute. Re-indexing the corpus weekly or daily multiplies that. And if you're using a commercial vector database, you're paying for storage, for read operations, for index builds. The costs scale faster than linear because larger indices require more complex routing and replication for decent query latency. Fine-tuning embeddings on your domain improves retrieval quality but adds another maintenance burden. Now you need training data—queries paired with relevant documents—and a pipeline to retrain when your corpus shifts. You need to version embedding models so you can roll back if a new version regresses. You need to migrate your vector index when you switch models, which means re-embedding everything and rebuilding the index. This isn't a one-time cost; it's ongoing operational overhead. The Unglamorous Truth RAG works when you treat it like the data system it is. That means data quality pipelines: deduplication, schema normalization, provenance tracking, update propagation. It means search infrastructure: index tuning, query analysis, ranking optimization, A/B testing. It means operational discipline: monitoring, evals, incident response, backfill processes when upstream schemas change. The LLM is the least of your problems. It'll do its job—map tokens to tokens, maintain coherence, follow instructions reasonably well. The question is whether you can deliver the right context. And that's an information retrieval problem we've been working on since the 1960s. Vector embeddings didn't obsolete BM25 any more than neural nets obsoleted regression trees. They're tools. Use them where they help, but don't mistake the tool for the solution. Most RAG failures I've seen stem from treating the system as a magic black box instead of a complex pipeline with observable failure modes. Teams skip the boring work—chunking analysis, retrieval metrics, continuous eval—because it's not "AI." Then they're surprised when users report hallucinations, when answers drift out of date, when the system confidently cites deprecated documentation. The data doesn't lie. Your retrieval logs will tell you exactly where things break, if you bother to look. Monday morning, that's where I'd start: grep the logs for low-confidence retrievals, trace a few examples end-to-end, find the pattern. Probably bad chunks. Maybe stale metadata. Possibly your query rewriting is too aggressive and distorting user intent before it even hits the index. Or maybe the problem is simpler: nobody's updated the knowledge base in six months, the documentation team is understaffed, and your RAG system is doing an admirable job of retrieving from a corpus that no longer reflects reality. You can't retrieve what doesn't exist. You can't rank what was never indexed. The best embeddings in the world won't save you if your source data is incomplete, outdated, or wrong. That's the part that doesn't fit in the demo. The part where someone has to actually maintain the knowledge base, triage user feedback, investigate retrieval failures, tune chunking strategies, rebuild indices, update metadata schemas, monitor for drift. The part where you realize that deploying an LLM was the easy part, and you've actually signed up for running a search engine with all the attendant complexity. Fix the data pipeline. The AI will take care of itself.