What this category's data looks like
This page addresses business basis queries in student disciplinary action and appeal handling scenarios. The materials include three types: disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements. Disciplinary fact materials record behavior descriptions, involved personnel, and dates; disciplinary decision documents state the type of disciplinary action, the basis clauses, the effective date, and signatures; appeal statements contain appeal requests, reasons, submission dates, and receipts. When these three types of materials enter this feature, disciplinary fact materials and disciplinary decision documents serve as candidate basis sources, while appeal statements serve as a comparison and supplementary source, all participating in retrieval in the form of original text fragments. The material update pace advances according to the handling stage; disciplinary decision documents may be revised during the appeal period, and appeal statements are appended as supplementary materials are added. In terms of field characteristics, the names, quantities, and dates of the same record often differ between the two types of materials, and version synchronization and signature/receipt completeness need to be checked item by item.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is performed by the reranking model in the retrieval service, which outputs the sorted candidates and reranking scores. Basis entries that can be traced back to the original text are then completed by citation trimming and answer generation. Hybrid retrieval simultaneously runs the vector and full-text paths and merges the results; after merging, the scope is large and similarity filtering cannot be applied directly, so the reranking model is usually used again to sort and filter by reranking score.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Whether the behavior description, involved personnel, and date fields are consistent with the names, quantities, and dates of the corresponding records in the disciplinary decision documents; whether the version is current; whether signatures are complete | Compare the names, quantities, and dates in the two materials item by item, check the version number and signature fields, and record discrepancies |
| Disciplinary decision documents | Whether the type of disciplinary action, basis clauses, and effective date correspond to the basis cited in the appeal statement; whether the version is synchronized; whether the receipt is attached | Retrieve the disciplinary decision documents and appeal statements, and check the basis clause numbers, effective date, and receipt acknowledgment records |
| Appeal statements | Whether the appeal request, reasons, and submission date connect with the timeline of the disciplinary fact materials and disciplinary decision documents; whether signatures and receipts are complete | Sort the three materials by date, and check timeline continuity and signature/receipt completeness |
| Reranking model | Bound and used for sorting and filtering; compare the sorting and scores before and after reranking, and observe changes in the number of candidates and scores | Check usingReRank, searchMode, similarity, and limit in the search parameters, and compare the order and scores of the top three before and after reranking |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The names, quantities, and dates of the same record do not match between the disciplinary fact materials and the disciplinary decision documents. Cause: The two materials are entered separately, without cross-material field comparison and version synchronization.
- Symptom: The disciplinary decision document is revised during the appeal period, but the appeal statement still cites the old basis clauses. Cause: The version is not synchronized, and retrieval candidates are not filtered by the current version.
- Symptom: The appeal statement lacks signatures or receipts, and basis entries cannot be traced back to the original text. Cause: Signature and receipt completeness were not verified during the material archiving step.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: compare the order and scores of the top three before and after enabling reranking, check changes in the number of candidates and reranking scores, and confirm the status values of usingReRank, searchMode, similarity, and limit.
Business test: ask a cross-material basis question and see whether the answer provides traceable sources.
- Check the vector and full-text path switches in the search parameters, confirm that candidates come from both paths, and record the number of candidates and reranking scores.
- Compare the names, quantities, dates, versions, and signature/receipt information of the disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements item by item, and mark inconsistencies.