What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of district and county teaching research activities and lesson observation and evaluation. The materials include three types: teaching research activity notices, lesson observation records, and lesson evaluation minutes. The sources are the daily archives of kindergartens and teaching research groups, and the update rhythm advances with activity batches and is supplemented record by record. Field characteristics: activity notices contain the activity name, date, participants, activity arrangements, and seal; lesson observation records contain the observation time, class, instructor, activity segments, observation points, and signature; lesson evaluation minutes contain the evaluation date, evaluation participants, evaluation points, improvement suggestions, and signature receipt. When the three types of materials enter this function, their roles differ: activity notices serve as the entry point for activity background and basis, lesson observation records serve as the source of process facts and basis, and lesson evaluation minutes serve as the source of evaluation conclusions and basis. When querying the business basis, the names, quantities, dates, and signatures in the three types of materials must be aligned item by item in order to form basis entries that can be traced back to the original text.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the server-side model channel configuration, which outputs the model binding relationships and channel responses. The basis entries that can be traced back to the original text are then completed by subsequent AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work. Models are divided into five categories: language, indexing, reranking, speech synthesis, and speech recognition. Different steps bind different model types, and during configuration the type labels and the model names returned by the channel must be checked.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Teaching research activity notice | The name, date, participants, and seal must be aligned item by item with the lesson observation records and lesson evaluation minutes | Compare the activity name, activity date, and instructor in the activity notice and the lesson observation records, and check whether the seal and receipt are complete |
| Lesson observation record | The observation time, class, instructor, observation points, and signature must be consistent with the activity notice and lesson evaluation minutes | Check the evaluation date, activity name, and number of improvement suggestions in the lesson observation records and lesson evaluation minutes, and check whether signatures are missing |
| Lesson evaluation minutes | The evaluation date, evaluation participants, evaluation points, and signature receipt must be consistent with the activity notice and lesson observation records | Compare the activity name, date, and participants in the lesson evaluation minutes and the activity notice, and check whether the receipt is synchronized |
| Model binding relationships | The five model categories of language, indexing, reranking, speech synthesis, and speech recognition correspond to the steps in which they are to be used | In the model configuration, check the type labels, compare them with the model names returned by the channel, and check the binding steps of maxContext, maxTokens, quoteMaxToken, and toolChoice |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same activity do not match across two materials. Cause: The activity notice, lesson observation records, and lesson evaluation minutes are archived separately, and field alignment has not been done.
- Symptom: Material versions are not synchronized, and an old notice coexists with a new set of minutes. Cause: The update rhythm advances with activity batches, and old versions are not overwritten during supplementary entry.
- Symptom: Lesson observation records or lesson evaluation minutes lack a signature or receipt. Cause: Seals and receipts were not checked during archiving, so basis entries cannot be traced back to the original text.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance check: run one conversation and one retrieval, check the model identifier in the response, compare it with the model name and type label returned by the channel, and confirm that the binding relationships for steps such as language, indexing, and reranking are correct.
Business test: ask a basis question that spans materials, see whether the answer gives a traceable source, and check the tokens of the quoted text and the number of array entries and record them separately.
- Compare the activity notice, lesson observation records, and lesson evaluation minutes, and check item by item whether the names, quantities, dates, and signature receipts are consistent.
- In the model configuration, check the type labels and the model names returned by the channel, and check the binding steps of
maxContext,maxTokens,quoteMaxToken, andtoolChoice.