What this category's data looks like
Graduate training process management involves materials such as training plans, proposal reports, and mid-term assessment forms. The sources are the current versions archived by the training unit, and the update cadence follows the advancement of training stages and version revisions. The training plan states the courses and required stages, the proposal report states the topic selection and justification, and the mid-term assessment form states the progress and review comments. When the three enter knowledge base retrieval and recall, each is split and indexed as an independent document, becoming the source of candidate chunks; if the name, quantity, date, and signature information of the same record do not match between two materials, this directly affects the traceability of the recalled chunks back to the original text. When material versions are not synchronized, or signatures or receipts are missing, retrieval still returns candidates and scores, but whether the basis items can be matched to the original text must be verified by subsequent nodes or manually.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate chunks and similarity scores (after mode, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming). "Basis items traceable to the original text" are then completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Training plan | Whether the fields, dates, and signatures match those in the proposal report and mid-term assessment form | In the search test, switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, or hybrid, and see whether the returned candidates cover both materials at the same time |
| Proposal report | Whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent with the training plan | Compare the order of the first few items before and after enabling rerank, record the number of candidate items and scores, and check the usingReRank status |
| Mid-term assessment form | Whether the version is current and whether signatures or receipts are complete | Test once each with synonymous rewrites of the same question, and see the key original-text chunks retained after similarity filtering |
| Knowledge base retrieval service | Whether candidate chunks and scores can be traced back to the original text of this unit's materials | Record the number of cited items and the tokens of the cited text after limit trimming, and do not compare the array length as equal to the citation budget |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name and date of the same record do not match between the training plan and the proposal report. Cause: The two materials were imported separately, without same-source verification and version alignment.
- Symptom: The version of the mid-term assessment form is not synchronized, and the recalled chunks point to an old version. Cause: After revision, re-indexing was not performed, and retrieval still hits historical candidates.
- Symptom: Materials missing signatures or receipts are still recalled as candidates. Cause: Retrieval only outputs candidates and scores; signature completeness is not determined in the recall step.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: Test once each with synonymous rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle rerank on and off to see the ordering of the first few items, and record the number of items under searchMode, similarity, usingReRank, and limit.
Business test: Ask a cross-material basis question and see whether the answer provides traceable sources.
- In the search test, perform synonymous rewrites of the same question, record the number of candidate items and scores, and compare the differences after switching modes.
- Check the tokens of the returned cited text and the number of array items, record them separately, and do not compare the number of cited items as equal to the citation content budget.