RAG is Dead, Long Live Context Engines: The Evolution of Document AI

RAG—Retrieval-Augmented Generation—was the answer to everything in 2023.

Want your chatbot to know about your company? RAG. Need to query documents? RAG. Building a knowledge assistant? RAG.

Two years later, something shifted. Long-context models arrived. Claude handles 200K tokens. Gemini processes millions. Suddenly, you can just... put the documents in the prompt.

So is RAG dead?

Not exactly. But classical RAG—the simple retrieve-then-generate pattern—is fading. What's replacing it is smarter, more dynamic, and fundamentally different.

Welcome to the age of context engines.

The Rise and Limits of Classical RAG

How Classical RAG Works

The traditional RAG pipeline:

1. Chunk documents into pieces
2. Create embeddings for each chunk
3. Store in vector database
4. On query: embed the query
5. Find similar chunks (vector search)
6. Stuff chunks into prompt
7. Generate response

This was revolutionary in 2023. Before RAG, chatbots could only use their training knowledge. After RAG, they could reference your specific documents.

Where Classical RAG Fails

But the cracks appeared quickly:

Problem 1: Chunking Destroys Context

Documents have structure. A chunk from page 5 might reference a definition on page 1. Classical RAG loses this:

Original: "The system uses TPS reports (see Section 2.1 for format)
           to track daily metrics as defined in our core KPIs."

Chunk retrieved: "...track daily metrics as defined in our core KPIs."

Issue: What are TPS reports? What's the format? What are core KPIs?

The chunk is technically relevant but informationally useless.

Problem 2: Semantic Similarity ≠ Relevance

Vector search finds semantically similar content. But similarity isn't relevance:

Query: "How do I reset my password?"

Most similar chunk: "Password security is crucial. Use strong passwords
                     with numbers and symbols."

Actually relevant: "To reset your password, go to Settings > Account >
                    Change Password..."

The first chunk matches more words but doesn't answer the question.

Problem 3: No Reasoning About Retrieval

Classical RAG retrieves blindly. It doesn't think:

• "Should I search at all?"
• "What exactly should I search for?"
• "Did I find what I needed?"
• "Should I search again with different terms?"

It just retrieves top-k results and hopes for the best.

Problem 4: Static Retrieval

One query, one retrieval. But complex questions need multiple retrievals:

Query: "Compare our Q3 revenue to Q2 and explain the variance"

Needs:
- Q3 revenue data
- Q2 revenue data
- Context about business conditions
- Possibly market data

Classical RAG retrieves once. The question needs iterative search.

Problem 5: Can't Handle "Not Found"

When relevant information doesn't exist, classical RAG still retrieves something—usually irrelevant chunks—and generates a confident-sounding but incorrect response.

Enter Long-Context Models

Meanwhile, context windows exploded:

Model	Context Window
GPT-4 (2023)	8K-32K tokens
Claude 2 (2023)	100K tokens
Claude 3 (2024)	200K tokens
Gemini 1.5 (2024)	1M tokens
Gemini 2.0 (2025)	2M+ tokens

2M tokens ≈ 1.5 million words ≈ several books.

Suddenly, a different approach became viable:

Instead of:  Chunk → Embed → Retrieve → Generate
Just do:     Put entire documents in prompt → Generate

This "full-context" approach has advantages:

• No information loss from chunking
• Model sees all relationships
• No retrieval errors
• Simpler architecture

But Long Context Has Limits Too

It's not a silver bullet:

Cost: Processing 2M tokens is expensive. Every query processes the full context.

Latency: More tokens = slower responses. Users wait longer.

Needle in haystack: Models struggle to find specific information in massive contexts. Performance degrades.

Not everything fits: Enterprise knowledge bases are often larger than even 2M tokens.

No dynamic knowledge: Context is fixed at query time. Can't fetch live data.

The Synthesis: Context Engines

The future isn't RAG vs. long context. It's intelligent systems that use both—plus reasoning.

We call these Context Engines.

What Is a Context Engine?

A context engine is an agentic system that:

1. Reasons about what it needs before retrieving
2. Dynamically decides retrieval strategy
3. Iteratively searches until it has enough information
4. Combines multiple sources (documents, APIs, databases)
5. Knows when it doesn't know and says so

It's not retrieve-then-generate. It's think-retrieve-think-retrieve-synthesize.

The Context Engine Loop

User Query
    ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│          REASONING LAYER                │
│                                         │
│  "What do I need to answer this?"       │
│  "What do I already know?"              │
│  "Where should I look?"                 │
│                                         │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
    ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│         RETRIEVAL DECISION              │
│                                         │
│  - Search documents?                    │
│  - Call an API?                         │
│  - Query a database?                    │
│  - Use existing context?                │
│  - Admit I don't know?                  │
│                                         │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
    ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│         ADAPTIVE RETRIEVAL              │
│                                         │
│  - Vector search                        │
│  - Keyword search                       │
│  - Structured query                     │
│  - Hybrid approach                      │
│                                         │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
    ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│         EVALUATION                      │
│                                         │
│  "Did I find what I needed?"            │
│  "Is this information sufficient?"      │
│  "Should I search for more?"            │
│                                         │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
    ↓
[If insufficient: loop back to reasoning]
    ↓
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│         SYNTHESIS                       │
│                                         │
│  Combine all retrieved information      │
│  Generate response with citations       │
│  Acknowledge gaps if any                │
│                                         │
└─────────────────────────────────────────┘
    ↓
Response with Sources

Key Differences from Classical RAG

Classical RAG	Context Engine
Single retrieval	Iterative retrieval
Blind search	Reasoned search
Fixed top-k	Dynamic result count
One search method	Multi-modal search
No self-evaluation	Continuous evaluation
Retrieves always	Retrieves when needed
Silent failure	Admits uncertainty

Building Context Engines in Practice

Component 1: Query Understanding

Before searching, understand the query:

# Pseudo-code for query analysis
def analyze_query(query):
    return {
        "intent": classify_intent(query),  # factual, analytical, procedural
        "entities": extract_entities(query),  # names, dates, products
        "temporal": extract_time_context(query),  # recent, historical
        "complexity": assess_complexity(query),  # simple lookup vs. synthesis
        "search_strategy": determine_strategy(query)  # vector, keyword, hybrid
    }

A query like "What was our revenue last quarter?" needs:

• Financial data (entity: revenue)
• Time-bound (temporal: last quarter)
• Likely in structured data (strategy: database query)

A query like "Why did revenue decline?" needs:

• Revenue data PLUS
• Context about market conditions
• Internal factors
• Multiple sources synthesized

Component 2: Adaptive Retrieval

Different queries need different retrieval:

Vector Search: Best for conceptual questions

"What's our approach to customer success?"

Keyword Search: Best for specific terms

"Find the definition of 'ARR' in our glossary"

Structured Query: Best for data

"Revenue by region for Q3 2025"

Hybrid: Best for complex questions

"Compare our pricing strategy to competitors mentioned in last year's analysis"

A context engine chooses and combines these dynamically.

Component 3: Retrieval Evaluation

After retrieving, evaluate:

def evaluate_retrieval(query, results):
    # Check if results are relevant
    relevance_scores = score_relevance(query, results)

    # Check if we have enough information
    coverage = assess_coverage(query, results)

    # Check for contradictions
    consistency = check_consistency(results)

    return {
        "sufficient": coverage > 0.8 and min(relevance_scores) > 0.6,
        "contradictions": not consistency,
        "gaps": identify_gaps(query, results),
        "next_action": recommend_action(coverage, gaps)
    }

If retrieval is insufficient, search again—with refined queries.

Component 4: Multi-Source Synthesis

Real answers often need multiple sources:

Query: "Should we expand into the European market?"

Sources needed:
1. Internal market analysis documents
2. Financial projections
3. Competitor data (possibly from web search)
4. Regulatory information (possibly from APIs)
5. Previous expansion case studies

Synthesis: Combine all sources, weight by relevance and recency,
           acknowledge uncertainties, provide recommendation

Component 5: Honest Uncertainty

The hallmark of a good context engine: knowing what it doesn't know.

❌ Classical RAG output:
"Our revenue in Q3 was $4.2M with 15% growth."
(Confidently wrong because it retrieved irrelevant data)

✅ Context Engine output:
"I found revenue data for Q1 and Q2, but Q3 data isn't in the documents
I have access to. Based on the trend from Q1 ($3.1M) and Q2 ($3.6M),
Q3 might be around $4.1M assuming similar growth, but I'd recommend
checking the official Q3 report. Would you like me to search elsewhere?"

NovaKit's Approach to Context Engines

In NovaKit's Document Chat, we've evolved beyond classical RAG:

Intelligent Chunking

Instead of fixed-size chunks, we use:

• Semantic chunking: Break at natural boundaries
• Hierarchical indexing: Maintain document structure
• Context preservation: Include surrounding context with each chunk

Agentic Retrieval

Our document agents:

• Analyze queries before searching
• Choose between search strategies
• Iterate until sufficient information
• Combine results from multiple documents

Source Transparency

Every response includes:

• Exact sources cited
• Confidence indicators
• What wasn't found
• Suggestions for additional sources

Multi-Modal Support

Beyond text documents:

• PDFs with embedded images
• YouTube video transcripts
• Image analysis
• Structured data files

When to Use What

Use Long Context Alone When:

• Total content fits in context window
• Cost isn't a concern
• Content doesn't change often
• You need comprehensive understanding

Example: Analyzing a single contract or report

Use Classical RAG When:

• Simple Q&A over large corpus
• Low latency required
• Cost-sensitive applications
• Questions are straightforward lookups

Example: FAQ bot for product documentation

Use Context Engine When:

• Complex, multi-part questions
• Need for reasoning about information
• Multiple source types
• Accuracy is critical
• Need to acknowledge uncertainty

Example: Enterprise knowledge assistant, research tools, customer support

The Road Ahead

Context engines will continue evolving:

More Agent Collaboration

Multiple specialized agents working together:

• Research agent finds information
• Validation agent checks accuracy
• Synthesis agent combines findings
• Citation agent tracks sources

Better Evaluation Metrics

Moving beyond retrieval accuracy to:

• Answer correctness
• Completeness
• Calibrated confidence
• Source appropriateness

Continuous Learning

Context engines that:

• Learn from user feedback
• Improve retrieval over time
• Adapt to new document types
• Personalize to user needs

Standardized Protocols

Emerging standards like:

• Model Context Protocol (MCP)
• Unified retrieval interfaces
• Cross-platform context sharing

Conclusion

Classical RAG solved the "knowledge grounding" problem. But it was a first attempt—good enough for 2023, limiting by 2026.

Long-context models didn't kill RAG. They revealed its weaknesses and pointed toward something better.

Context engines represent the synthesis: intelligent systems that reason about what they need, retrieve adaptively, evaluate their findings, and acknowledge what they don't know.

The question isn't "RAG or long context?" It's "How do we build systems that find and use information intelligently?"

That's the evolution from retrieval-augmented generation to context engines.

---

Want to experience the future of document AI? NovaKit's Document Chat uses agentic retrieval to answer questions across your documents—with sources, confidence, and honest uncertainty.