What this category's data looks like
Materials for undergraduate program setup and dynamic adjustment consist mainly of program setup application forms, talent training plans, and expert review opinions, along with approval receipts and version notes. The application form provides the program name, code, length of study, enrollment scale, and the signature of the person in charge; the training plan provides the course structure, credits and class hours, practical components, and revision date; the expert review opinions provide the review conclusion, list of experts, signatures, and review date. Materials are updated on the rhythm of annual applications, mid-term inspections, and special evaluations, and the same record often appears in multiple materials under different names, quantities, and dates. Once they enter the document parsing and chunking stage, the application form handles field extraction and table splitting, the training plan handles long-text chunking and section locating, and the expert review opinions handle signature and date verification; together, the three support evidence entries that can be traced back to the original text.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by parsing and training tasks (server-side tasks), outputting data rows and index status (parsed, indexing, indexed). Evidence entries that can be traced back to the original text are then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup application form | Fields, dates, and signatures must match the original text, and names and quantities must be consistent between the two materials | Open the data row to check the parsed / indexing / indexed status, and review the chunking boundaries according to chunkSize and chunkSplitter |
| Talent training plan | Course names, credits and class hours, and revision date must be traceable to the original text, and the version must be the current one | Check the identity of the file record and the data row separately, and confirm that trainingType is consistent with the processing mode |
| Expert review opinions | The review conclusion, list of experts, signatures, and review date must be complete; missing signatures or receipts must be flagged | View the data rows covered by the rebuild task, and confirm that it only falls on data whose indexing has been completed |
| Approval receipts and version notes | Receipt numbers and version numbers must align with the application form and training plan | Perform cross-material references only after the data row status is indexed, to avoid misuse of data pending indexing |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same program do not match between two materials. Cause: The materials were drafted separately, without field-level alignment and traceback verification.
- Symptom: The training plan has already been revised, but the application form still references the old version. Cause: The versions were not synchronized, and the current version and historical versions are mixed in the same retrieval scope.
- Symptom: Expert review opinions are missing signatures or receipts. Cause: Scanned copies have missing pages or receipts were not archived with the materials, resulting in empty fields after parsing.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: upload one material and observe the data row status transitions and the coverage of the rebuild task.
Business test: ask a cross-material evidence question and see whether the answer provides a traceable source.
- Open the data row to check whether the status is parsed / indexing / indexed, and compare it with the interface display.
- Check the identifiers of the file record and the data row separately, and confirm that the rebuild only covers data whose indexing has been completed.