Describe the retrieval question
A user may search for a visible action, a spoken topic, or a moment combining both. Specify which evidence should make a result relevant and whether the system must return a timestamp, a clip, or a whole session. A general episode description may support topic browsing without supporting precise event retrieval within a long video.
Choose the evidence interval
State how much surrounding context a returned result should include. A tight interval can omit the cause or outcome, while a long interval can bury the relevant moment. Decide how repeated events and overlapping matches are represented. Keep retrieval relevance distinct from temporal boundary accuracy so reviewers can explain whether a result found the right event but localized it poorly.
Create meaningful nonmatches
Include visually similar actions, discussion without demonstration, and events sharing the same objects where appropriate. Define partial relevance instead of forcing every candidate into an unexplained binary label. Separate text supplied from outside the video from grounded descriptions of visible and audible content. This helps prevent a retrieval benchmark from rewarding title matching when the intended task requires examining the footage.
Review navigation and grouping
Test that each result points to the exact delivered version and a playable interval. Preserve source identifiers and offsets for derived clips, and group related productions according to the evaluation design. Ask Fiund about prospective footage and annotation feasibility for the project. Availability, usage documentation, sample access, and commercial terms are reviewed specifically rather than implied by a broad retrieval category.
Review checklist
- Define query types and relevance evidence.
- Choose returned units and contextual margins.
- Include partial matches and hard nonmatches.
- Verify timestamps against exact delivered media.