What this category's data looks like
This page addresses business basis queries in the investigation and handling of academic misconduct reports. Material types include report materials, investigation reports, and expert appraisal opinions. Report materials usually contain the complainant's statement, information on the reported paper, an evidence list, and the submission date; investigation reports contain the investigation process, established facts, handling recommendations, and a signature page; expert appraisal opinions contain the appraisal matters, analysis opinions, conclusions, and expert signatures. The three material types play different roles when entering dialogue and retrieval: report materials provide leads and original facts, investigation reports provide procedural records and conclusions, and expert appraisal opinions provide professional judgment. The material update cadence depends on case progress, and versions must be kept in sync with the current handling status. Field characteristics center on names, quantities, dates, signatures, and receipts. It is common for the same record to have mismatched names, quantities, or dates across different materials, or for versions to be out of sync, or for signatures or receipts to be missing.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the server-side model channel configuration, which outputs model binding relationships and channel responses. Basis items that can be traced back to the original text are completed by subsequent AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work. Models are divided into five categories: language, indexing, reranking, speech synthesis, and speech recognition. Different steps bind different model types, and type labels must be checked in the model configuration.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Report materials | Fields, dates, and signatures must be consistent with the corresponding records in the investigation report | Check item by item whether the paper name, evidence quantity, and submission date in the report materials match the cited locations in the investigation report, and confirm that signatures or receipts are complete |
| Investigation report | The version must be the currently effective version and must not conflict with the conclusions of the expert appraisal opinions | Compare the established facts in the investigation report with the appraisal matters in the expert appraisal opinions, check dates, names, and quantities, and confirm that there are no remnants of old versions and no missing signature pages |
| Expert appraisal opinions | The appraisal matters and conclusions must be traceable back to the original text items | Check the expert signatures, appraisal date, and conclusion wording, confirm the correspondence with the handling recommendations in the investigation report, and record the tokens and array item count of the quoted text |
| Model type | Corresponds to the step in which it is to be used | Check the type labels in the model configuration, confirm the steps to which language, indexing, reranking, speech synthesis, and speech recognition are each bound, and check the applicable positions of maxContext, maxTokens, and quoteMaxToken |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The same paper name is written differently in the report materials and the investigation report, and the quantities and dates also do not match. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, and no field-level verification was performed.
- Phenomenon: The investigation report cites an old version of the expert appraisal opinions, and the conclusions conflict with the current version. Cause: The versions were not synchronized, and the associated materials were not replaced after the update.
- Phenomenon: The investigation report is missing a signature page or the report materials are missing a receipt, and the basis items cannot be traced back to the original text. Cause: The completeness of signatures and receipts was not verified during the material circulation step.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: run one dialogue and one retrieval, check whether the model identifier in the response is consistent with the name listed in the document, and confirm that the model name returned by the channel corresponds to the binding relationship.
Business test: ask a basis question that spans materials, see whether the answer provides a traceable source, and check and record the tokens and array item count of the quoted text separately.
- Check the channel configuration and key source, confirm that the call can succeed, and at the same time confirm that personnel permissions to read knowledge base materials are configured independently.
- Compare the names, quantities, dates, and signatures in the report materials, investigation report, and expert appraisal opinions, mark inconsistencies item by item, and synchronize versions.