What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the business basis query scenario for peer review organizations. Material types include review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes, sourced from the original records and receipts circulated at each stage. The update cadence advances with manuscript handling milestones, and each review round may produce a new version. Field characteristics center on the invitee, review round, and deadline of the review invitation; the review conclusion, comment body, and submission time of the expert review comments; and the revision items, point-by-point responses, and signed confirmation of the author revision notes. When the materials enter the model access and configuration function, the review invitation and expert review comments serve as retrieval sources, and the author revision notes serve as the supporting draft for replying to the parent or writing into the plan; together the three support the generation of basis entries that can be traced back to the original text.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the server-side model channel configuration, which outputs the model binding relationships and channel responses. The basis entries that can be traced back to the original text are completed subsequently by AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work; configuring the model does not mean the business data permissions are configured.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | The invitee, review round, and deadline must be consistent with the records in the expert review comments, and the signature or receipt must not be missing | Check the corresponding items between this material's fields and the expert review comments, confirm the dates and signature are complete, and check whether toolChoice affects tool invocation |
| Expert review comments | The review conclusion, comment body, and submission time must match the point-by-point response dates in the author revision notes | Compare the names, quantities, and dates of the two materials, confirm the version is current, and check whether maxContext and maxTokens accommodate long comment texts |
| Author revision notes | The revision items and point-by-point responses must be traceable back to the original text of the expert review comments, and the signature or receipt must not be missing | Check the correspondence between this material's items and the expert review comments, confirm the quoted text tokens are within the quoteMaxToken budget, and record the array item count separately |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, or date of the same record does not match between the review invitation and the expert review comments. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, without field-level comparison and receipt verification.
- Symptom: The author revision notes cite items from an old version of the expert review comments. Cause: The version was not synchronized, and the revision notes were not refreshed when the review comments were updated.
- Symptom: The review invitation lacks a signature or receipt but is still treated as valid basis. Cause: Material admission did not verify the signature and receipt fields, and the basis entries cannot be traced back to the original text.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: run one conversation and one retrieval, check the model identifier in the response, confirm the language model and the index model are bound to their respective steps, and record the actual values of maxContext, maxTokens, and quoteMaxToken.
Business test: ask a cross-material basis question and see whether the answer provides traceable sources; the sources must point to the original text locations in the review invitation, expert review comments, or author revision notes.
- In the model configuration, check that the model type label corresponds to the step to be used, confirm the channel and key source are consistent, and verify the model identifier against the model name returned by the channel.
- Compare the review invitation, expert review comments, and author revision notes item by item for name, quantity, date, and signature/receipt, and confirm the version is current and the entries can be traced back to the original text.