What this category's data looks like
This page is for student disciplinary actions and appeal handling scenarios. Materials include three types: disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal letters. Sources are the student affairs system, academic affairs system, and appeal acceptance channels. The update cadence advances according to disciplinary process nodes. Field characteristics center on student name, student ID, disciplinary fact description, disciplinary type, decision date, appeal date, signature, and receipt status. The three types of materials each have a role when entering the knowledge base retrieval and recall function: disciplinary fact materials provide original fact fragments, disciplinary decision documents provide conclusion and basis fragments, and appeal letters provide objection and supplementary explanation fragments. Together they constitute the candidate fragment sources for subsequent nodes or manual material verification and discrepancy localization.
Configuration and implementation checks
The knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test) only outputs candidate fragments and similarity scores (after mode, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming). The discrepancy list must be done by subsequent nodes or manually. Retrieval mode can be semantic, full-text, or hybrid. Multiple candidate paths are merged and then secondarily sorted by rerank, then filtered by similarity and trimmed by citation limit, finally producing the citation content handed to the model.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Compare name, quantity, date, and signature field by field with the disciplinary decision document and appeal letter | In the search test, use the same fact description to switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, and hybrid for one retrieval each, record the number of candidates and similarity scores, then enable usingReRank to compare the ordering of the top few results |
| Disciplinary decision document | Check disciplinary type, decision date, signature, and receipt against the disciplinary fact materials and appeal letter | Construct a query using the disciplinary type and date in the decision document, check whether candidate fragments cover both the decision document and the fact materials, and verify whether the tokens of the cited text after limit trimming retain key fields |
| Appeal letter | Check appeal date, appeal reasons, and receipt against the disciplinary decision document and disciplinary fact materials | Search using the objection wording in the appeal letter, observe whether candidates recall the corresponding clauses in the decision document, compare the order of the top few results before and after enabling rerank, and confirm that date and signature fields are complete in the citations |
| Ledger records | Check whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent with the three types of materials | Search using the student name and disciplinary type of one real record, compare item by item the name, quantity, and date in candidate fragments, locate fields inconsistent with the ledger, and record them |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The disciplinary type or date of the same record does not match between the disciplinary fact materials and the disciplinary decision document. Cause: The two materials are entered at different nodes, versions are not synchronized, and the fragments recalled from each during retrieval are not compared at the field level.
- Phenomenon: The appeal letter lacks a signature or receipt, but candidate fragments are still recalled and cited. Cause: Signature and receipt status are not validated when materials are ingested, and similarity filtering only trims by text relevance and does not identify missing signatures or seals.
- Phenomenon: There are many candidates but the ones ranked first are irrelevant, and the answer lacks key paragraphs. Cause: The retrieval mode does not match the material form, rerank is not enabled after multi-path merging, and similarity filtering and citation limit trimming push key fragments out.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: test once each with synonym-rewritten queries, compare candidates and similarity scores, then toggle usingReRank to see the ordering of the top few results; at the same time switch searchMode to observe the number of candidates and the tokens of the cited text after limit trimming, and record the array count separately.
Business test: use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, and verify item by item the name, quantity, date, and signature receipt in the disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision document, and appeal letter.
- In the knowledge base search test, retrieve the same record using semantic, full-text, and hybrid modes respectively, record the number of candidates and
similarityscores, and mark which fragments come from the disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision document, or appeal letter. - Enable
usingReRankto compare the ordering of the top few results, check whether the cited text afterlimittrimming retains the name, quantity, date, and signature receipt fields, write the discrepancy fields into the discrepancy list for the reviewer to confirm and write back.