What this category's data looks like
This category's data looks like this: For business basis queries on university laboratory safety grading and classification, the materials include laboratory grading and classification tables, hazard source lists, and safety responsibility statements. The grading and classification table records the risk level, hazard source category, and control level by room or experimental unit, and its update cadence follows each academic year's safety assessment or laboratory renovation; the hazard source list records name, quantity, storage location, and responsible person, and changes with procurement, scrapping, and transfer; the safety responsibility statement contains the scope of responsibility, signature, and receipt date, and is re-signed annually or upon personnel changes. When these three types of materials enter this feature, their roles differ: the grading and classification table provides the skeleton for level determination, the hazard source list provides item-level basis, and the safety responsibility statement provides responsibility attribution and effective time. When querying cross-material basis questions, it is necessary to align the same record on name, quantity, and date, and to confirm that the version is current and that signatures and receipts are complete, before it can be traced back to the original text item.
Configuration and implementation checks
Configuration and implementation checks: This step is executed by the reranking model in the retrieval service, which outputs the sorted candidates and rerank scores. "Basis items that can be traced back to the original text" are then completed by citation trimming and answer generation. Hybrid retrieval runs both the vector and full-text paths simultaneously and merges the results; after merging, the scope is large and similarity filtering cannot be applied directly, so the reranking model is usually then used to sort and filter by rerank score.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Laboratory grading and classification table | The level, hazard source category, control level, and room number need to be aligned item by item with the hazard source list, and the date must be the current version | Check the name, quantity, and date of the same room in the grading and classification table and the hazard source list; confirm the version has not expired |
| Hazard source list | The fields name, quantity, storage location, and responsible person are complete, and are consistent with the scope of responsibility in the safety responsibility statement | Compare the names and quantities in the two materials; check whether the signature and receipt date are missing |
| Safety responsibility statement | The scope of responsibility, signature, and receipt date are complete, and the effective version is synchronized with the current version of the grading and classification table | Check the signature and receipt; confirm that the version of the responsibility statement is consistent with the version of the grading and classification table |
| Reranking and hybrid retrieval | Candidates come from both the vector and full-text paths at the same time, and after reranking the top few are sorted by rerank score | In the search parameters, check searchMode, usingReRank, similarity, and limit; compare the number of candidates and scores before and after reranking |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name, quantity, or date of the same room does not match between the grading and classification table and the hazard source list. Cause: the two materials are maintained separately, without item-level alignment and version synchronization.
- Symptom: the safety responsibility statement lacks a signature or receipt but is still cited as the current basis. Cause: the material update cadence and personnel changes are not linked, and the version is not synchronized.
- Symptom: there are many candidates but the top few are irrelevant, and the results lean toward keyword hits. Cause: after merging, the scope is large, rerank score filtering is not used, and similarity filtering appears to fail.
How to verify the setup
How to verify the setup: For this feature's acceptance, compare the order of the top three and the rerank scores before and after enabling reranking, confirm that candidates come from both the vector and full-text paths at the same time, and check that the status values of searchMode, usingReRank, similarity, and limit only record the number of candidates and scores.
Business test: ask a cross-material basis question, see whether the answer gives a traceable source, and confirm that the number of cited items is the array length and that quoteMaxToken is the budget for cited content, without comparing the two for equality.
- Check the name, quantity, date, and signature receipt of the grading and classification table, hazard source list, and safety responsibility statement, mark inconsistencies, and trace them back to the original text items.
- Compare the ordering and scores before and after reranking, confirm that candidates come from both paths, and after filtering by rerank score hand them over to citation trimming and answer generation.