[Feature Request] Add a small "Multimodal RAG failure modes" checklist (docs only)

[onestardao]

Do you need to file a feature request?

• I have searched the existing feature request and this feature request is not already filed.
• I believe this is a legitimate feature request, not just a question or bug.

Feature Request Description

Hi RAG-Anything team, thanks for releasing this all-in-one multimodal document RAG system. It is very helpful for real world use cases that mix text, tables and images.

I have been working on RAG reliability and I often see the same kinds of problems in multimodal pipelines, for example:

• OCR or layout parsing errors that silently corrupt the corpus
• table structure lost during preprocessing
• misalignment between image regions and textual descriptions
• retrieval that focuses only on text while the answer actually depends on images or tables
• evaluation that only looks at text and ignores multimodal context and grounding

I would like to propose a very small, documentation only feature:

Feature

Add a short doc page called something like multimodal_rag_failure_modes.md and link it from the README or a Troubleshooting / Best Practices section.

The page would contain:

1. A list of common multimodal failure modes (OCR/layout issues, table loss, image text misalignment, biased retrieval toward one modality).
2. Simple sanity checks for each one, for example:
   • visually inspect a few processed documents
   • check index size and embeddings per modality
   • run a few probe queries that should clearly depend on images or tables.
3. A short checklist for bug reports:
   • which modality failed
   • what preprocessing pipeline was used
   • a minimal example document and query

Why it helps

• Many users will run RAG-Anything on noisy, real world PDFs and mixed documents.
• A shared failure mode checklist can save time when debugging and reduce repeated “it does not work” questions.
• This is documentation only, so it is low risk and easy to review or adjust.

If you think this is useful and in scope, I am happy to draft a PR with a concise version that follows your documentation style.

Additional Context

Additional context:

I recently contributed a small robustness related entry to Harvard MIMS Lab’s ToolUniverse project, so I am used to keeping these kinds of checklists very focused and easy to maintain. Happy to do the same here if you think it fits the roadmap.