What this category's data looks like
This category's data involves three core types of materials: program setup application forms, talent training plans, and expert review opinions. The application form is filled out by the department, containing the program name, code, proposed setup year, and enrollment number; the training plan is written by the teaching and research office, containing the curriculum system, credits, and practical components; the review opinions are issued by the expert panel, containing the review date, expert signatures, and conclusion. Materials are updated according to the annual application cycle, and some institutions have version iterations. When entering this feature, the application form serves as the main record providing the program name and number, the training plan provides the course and credit fields, and the review opinions provide the date and signature fields; the three must be cross-checked for consistency in name, number, date, and signatures.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the tool calling node in the workflow (the model decides whether to call it, and the node executes it), outputting the tool call result (the input parameters and return in the call record). The "discrepancy list" is then completed by a subsequent AI node or manual verification.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup application form | Whether the program name, proposed setup year, and enrollment number are consistent with the training plan and review opinions | Compare the name, number, and date field by field across the three materials, and record inconsistent items |
| Talent training plan | Whether the course credits and practical components match the description in the application form | Check the course names and credit numbers, and inspect the version number and signing date |
| Expert review opinions | Whether the review date, expert signatures, and conclusion are complete and correspond to the application form | Check the signature column and receipt, and confirm the date is not earlier than the application form submission date |
| Tool calling node | Whether the tool introduction, parameter introduction, and whether it is required correspond to the material fields | Open the node configuration and check toolChoice, functionCall, and the required parameter items |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the same program has inconsistent names in the application form and the training plan. Cause: versions are not synchronized, and the department did not write back to the other material after modification.
- Symptom: the enrollment number does not match between the two materials. Cause: the ledger update lags, and the application form and training plan are filled out independently.
- Symptom: the review opinions lack signatures or receipts. Cause: experts did not sign in a timely manner after the review, and the material archiving step missed the check.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: run a test with a question missing required parameters, check the input parameters and return in the call record, and confirm whether it asks a follow-up question or calls according to the introduction; check the values of toolChoice and functionCall in the record.
Business test: use a real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, and mark name, number, or date discrepancies.
- Open the tool node introduction field and confirm the description is readable on its own, and check the parameter introduction and whether it is required item by item.
- Check the diamond-shaped interface connections and node status on the canvas, and run a test with a question missing fields to observe whether it asks a follow-up question.