What this category's data looks like
For business basis queries of peer review organizations, materials come from three types of case files: review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes, with the update rhythm advancing with review rounds. Review invitations contain the invitation date, reviewer name, and signature field; expert review comments contain the comment number, submission date, and expert signature; author revision notes contain the revision item number, reply date, and author signature. When these three types of materials enter this function, review invitations and expert comments are indexed as basis sources, and revision notes are indexed as comparison basis; the names, quantities, dates, and signature statuses in the fields are used to determine whether the basis is current and traceable. Because material roles differ, indexing groups by material type, and retrieval recalls across groups and then merges according to the original data.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the indexing service and vector database, outputting vectors and index status (whether recall is possible and whether data in the same group is merged). Basis items that can be traced back to the original text are then completed by subsequent AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work (retrieval and citation trimming only take supporting materials).
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | The invitation date and reviewer name are consistent in the expert comments, and the signature field has a receipt | Check the invitation date, reviewer name, and signature status to confirm that this basis item is current |
| Expert review comments | The comment number and submission date can be matched in the revision notes, and the expert signature is complete | Check the comment number, submission date, and expert signature to confirm that the basis can be traced back to the original text |
| Author revision notes | The revision item number and reply date match the expert comments, and the author signature is complete | Check the revision item number, reply date, and author signature to confirm that the basis is current |
| Index fields of a data row | Multiple vector identifiers for one data row are all present, and defaultToken and maxToken are recorded by material type | Open a data row and check the index fields, see whether the status is indexed, and check the coverage of the rebuild task record |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The names, quantities, and dates of the same record do not match between the review invitation and the expert comments. Inspect the following: The two materials were not entered according to the same numbering rule.
- Symptom: The revision notes have been updated, but the index still points to the old version. Inspect the following: The version was not synchronized; data rows that have not completed indexing do not participate in recall, so indexing must be completed before rebuilding.
- Symptom: The expert comments lack a signature or receipt, and the basis item cannot be traced back to the original text. Inspect the following: and duplicate items appear in the retrieval results.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this function: sample a data row and look at the index fields to confirm that multiple vector identifiers are all present and the status is indexed; then retrieve once to see whether data in the same group is merged and whether the score takes the highest score.
Business test: ask a cross-material basis question, see whether the answer gives a traceable source, and check that the number of citations and the quoteMaxToken budget are recorded separately.
- In the knowledge base settings, check that the indexing model is consistent with the vector model actually used; after changing models, check the data range covered by the rebuild task record.
- Open a data row and check the index fields, confirm that
defaultTokenandmaxTokenare recorded by material type, and check whether data in the same group is merged.