What this category's data looks like
Enterprise independent skill talent evaluation filing materials usually include three types: the enterprise evaluation filing form, the evaluation specification, and the candidate roster. The filing form states the evaluation occupation, level, venue, and assessor arrangements, with the declaration date and the unit's seal; the evaluation specification states the application conditions, evaluation method, weights, and passing score, with a version number and effective date; the roster states candidate names, identity information, declared level, and batch, with the summary count and handler's signature. After these three types of materials enter this function, their roles differ: the filing form and evaluation specification serve as basis sources for retrieval and locating clauses; the roster serves as a fact source for comparing headcount and batch. Materials are updated by batch, and after a specification is revised, the old version may still remain in the database, so the current version must be distinguished by effective date. Field characteristics are concentrated in four places: name, quantity, date, and signature, and when referencing across materials, inconsistent wording of the same record is most likely to occur.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the server-side model channel configuration, outputting model binding relationships and channel responses. Basis entries that can be traced back to the original text are then completed by subsequent AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work, that is, the language model handles dialogue, the indexing model handles retrieval, and the reranking model handles result ranking, with the three bound to their corresponding stages respectively.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise evaluation filing form | Whether the evaluation occupation, level, venue, and assessor arrangements are consistent with the current filing, and whether the declaration date and unit seal are complete | Retrieve the original filing form, check the occupation name and level wording, compare the seal and date, confirm there are no missing items, and register it as the current basis |
| Evaluation specification | Whether the application conditions, evaluation method, weights, and passing score are the version effective for this batch, and whether the version number and effective date can be traced back | Filter out the specification by version number and effective date, check the clause numbers, confirm they correspond to the occupation and level stated in the filing form, and record the clause source |
| Candidate roster | Whether candidate names, declared levels, and batches match the filing form and evaluation specification, and whether the summary count and handler's signature are complete | Compare names and levels one by one, check the summary count against the sum of details, inspect the handler's signature, and after marking discrepancies, ask the issuing party |
| Model configuration | Whether the three types of models—language, indexing, and reranking—are bound to their respective stages, and whether the model identifiers are consistent with the names returned by the channel | In the model configuration, check the type labels, compare them with the model names returned by the channel, check the values of maxContext and maxTokens, and in the retrieval stage confirm that the indexing model is bound |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the same candidate's name or level wording differs between the roster and the filing form. Cause: the two materials were entered separately, no cross-material comparison was made, and the wording for names and levels was not unified.
- Symptom: a specification clause has been revised, but retrieval still returns the old conditions. Cause: the old version was not removed, the effective date was not included in filtering, and the version was not synchronized.
- Symptom: a basis entry lacks the handler's signature or receipt and cannot be traced back. Cause: when the materials were archived, the signature was missed or the receipt was not attached, so the entry can only be located to the main text and its effectiveness cannot be confirmed.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: run one dialogue and one retrieval, check the model identifiers in the responses, confirm that the language model and indexing model are bound to the dialogue and retrieval stages respectively, that the reranking model is bound to the result ranking stage, and check the values of maxContext, maxTokens, and toolChoice in the channel responses.
Business test: ask a cross-material basis question, for example whether a certain batch of candidates' declared levels are consistent between the filing form and the roster and which specification they are based on, and see whether the answer gives traceable sources, including material name, clause number or line number, and effective date.
- Check the names, quantities, dates, and signatures in the three materials—the filing form, evaluation specification, and roster—list inconsistencies, and ask the issuing party.
- In the model configuration, check the model type labels and the model names returned by the channel, and confirm that the three types of models—language, indexing, and reranking—are each bound to their corresponding stage.