What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of annual progress and acceptance of scientific research projects; the materials include annual progress reports, mid-term review materials, and acceptance reports. Annual progress reports are submitted at annual milestones and contain task assignments, indicator completion status, budget execution, and signature pages; mid-term review materials contain stage objectives, milestones, expert opinions, and receipts; acceptance reports contain final indicators, a list of results, dates, and signatures. When these three types of materials enter the model access and configuration stage, their roles differ: annual progress reports and mid-term review materials serve as sources of retrievable text chunks, while acceptance reports serve as the comparison baseline. Field characteristics center on names, quantities, dates, signatures, and version numbers. The same record is prone to inconsistencies in names, quantities, and dates across different materials, with versions not synchronized or signature receipts missing. The update cadence rolls with project milestones; each submission produces a new version, and old versions must be marked as historical.
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 completed subsequently by AI nodes, code nodes, or humans. Channel keys only affect whether calls succeed; they do not determine whether personnel can read knowledge base materials; configuring the model does not equal configuring business data permissions.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Annual progress report | Fields, dates, and signatures must be cross-consistent with the mid-term review materials and acceptance report; the name, quantity, and date of the same record must not mismatch | Check the task names, indicator quantities, submission dates, and signature pages in the report; compare them against the same-named fields in the mid-term review materials and acceptance report; check whether the version number is the current version |
| Mid-term review materials | Stage objectives, milestones, and expert opinions must have receipts or signatures, and the version must be synchronized with the annual progress report | Check whether milestone dates are consistent with the annual progress report; check whether expert opinion receipts are complete; confirm that when versions are not synchronized, the current version prevails |
| Acceptance report | Final indicators, list of results, dates, and signatures must be traceable back to the original text entries in the annual progress report and mid-term review materials | Check whether result names and quantities are consistent across the two materials; check whether signatures and dates are complete; record the tokens and array count of the quoted text |
| Server-side model channel configuration | The model type corresponds to the stage in which it is to be used, and the model identifier is consistent with the name listed in the documentation | Check the type label in the model configuration; compare it against the model name returned by the channel; check the configuration items for maxContext, maxTokens, quoteMaxToken, and toolChoice |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name and quantity of the same record do not match between the annual progress report and the acceptance report. Cause: the two materials each maintain their own fields without cross-checking, resulting in differences in names and quantities.
- Symptom: the version of the mid-term review materials is not synchronized, and the old version is still retrieved. Cause: after a new version is submitted, the old version is not marked as historical, so expired content is hit during retrieval.
- Symptom: the acceptance report lacks signatures or receipts, and basis entries cannot be traced back to the original text. Cause: signature pages and receipts were not archived together with the materials, so the entries lose a verifiable source.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: run one conversation and one retrieval, check the model identifier in the response, confirm that the model binding relationship is consistent with the channel response, and check the configuration items for maxContext, maxTokens, quoteMaxToken, and toolChoice.
Business test: ask a basis question that spans materials, see whether the answer provides a traceable source, and check the tokens and array count of the quoted text.
- Check the names, quantities, dates, and signatures in the annual progress report, mid-term review materials, and acceptance report, mark inconsistent items, and require traceability back to the original text entries.
- In the model configuration, check that the model type corresponds to the stage and that the model identifier is consistent with the name returned by the channel, and check the channel and key source.