What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of undergraduate program revision. Materials come from the program, course syllabi, and the credit structure table. The update cadence is version iteration within each revision cycle, and field characteristics include course name, credit count, course start date, and signature field. The program serves as the master outline, the course syllabi serve as support, and the credit structure table serves as the summary. When the three enter this feature, each takes on a different role: the program provides the top-level framework, the course syllabi provide course-level details, and the credit structure table provides the credit and quantity comparison. Material verification and discrepancy localization require field-by-field comparison. The name, quantity, and date of the same object in two materials must be consistent. Version synchronization and complete signature receipts are the basis for judgment.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is performed by application settings (response limit, etc.), which output the length of a single answer and the range of context that can be accommodated. The "discrepancy list" is then completed by the model. The response limit uses a slider to control the length of a single answer. If set too low, the answer will be truncated; if set too high, consumption will increase.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program | Course name, credit count, course start date, and signature field remain consistent between the program and the course syllabi | In application settings, check the response limit switch and slider position, use maxResponse to control the length of a single answer, and compare the name, quantity, and date of the two materials field by field |
| Course syllabi | Course name, credit count, course start date, and signature field remain consistent between the course syllabi and the credit structure table | Check maxContext and quoteMaxToken, confirm the context range and quoted content budget, and check whether the version number and signature receipt are synchronized |
| Credit structure table | Credit count, number of courses, and date remain consistent between the credit structure table and the program | Check the coordination of maxResponse and maxContext, record the number of quotes and the tokens of the quoted text, record the number of array items separately, and locate the discrepant fields |
| Discrepancy list | The name, quantity, and date of the same object in two materials are consistent, the version is synchronized, and the signature receipt is complete | Hand it to the reviewer for confirmation and write back, and use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name of the same course does not match in two materials. Cause: The version is not synchronized; the program and the course syllabi were revised separately without unified write-back.
- Symptom: The credit count and course start date are inconsistent in two materials. Cause: The credit structure table was not checked item by item against the course syllabi during aggregation.
- Symptom: The signature field or receipt is missing. Cause: The revision process is not closed-loop; signature confirmation was not completed before the materials entered verification.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: Ask a question that requires a long answer, check whether the ending is complete, and confirm that the response limit setting matches the answer length required by the page.
Business test: Use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, record the discrepancy list, and hand it to the reviewer for confirmation.
- In application settings, check the response limit switch and slider position, and confirm the single-answer length and context range.
- Compare the name, quantity, date, and signature of the program, course syllabi, and credit structure table field by field, record discrepancies, and write them back.