What this category's data looks like
In the graduate admissions re-examination and admission scenario, materials are mainly of three types: re-examination plans, candidate score sheets, and transfer lists. Re-examination plans come from the graduate school of the admitting unit, are published according to the annual admissions cycle, and contain application conditions, re-examination ratios, score weights, time and location, and signature fields; candidate score sheets come from the aggregation of preliminary and re-examination scoring by each department, are updated by batch, and contain candidate number, name, subject scores, total score, and ranking; transfer lists come from the graduate admissions transfer system and departmental receipts, are updated on a rolling basis by round, and contain transfer preferences, proposed admission major, study mode, and confirmation status. When these three types of materials enter this feature, the re-examination plan plays the role of the rule baseline, providing field definitions and time nodes; the candidate score sheet plays the role of the data subject, providing item-by-item scores for each person; the transfer list plays the role of the object checklist, providing the set of records that must be compared one by one with the score sheet and the plan. Field characteristics are concentrated in name, candidate number, major name, quantity, date, and signature fields, and the update rhythm is a coexistence of batch-triggered, round-triggered, and manual-receipt-triggered updates.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the tool calling node in the workflow (the model decides whether to call, and the node executes), 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. Based on the tool description, parameter descriptions, and whether parameters are required, the model determines whether to call the tool this time.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Re-examination plan | Whether the fields, dates, and signatures are consistent with the definitions in the score sheet and transfer list | Check item by item the major name, re-examination ratio, time nodes, and signature fields in the plan, and confirm that they match the corresponding fields in the score sheet and transfer list |
| Candidate score sheet | Whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent across the two materials | Compare the score sheet with the transfer list by candidate number and name, and check whether subject scores, total score, ranking, and proposed admission major are consistent |
| Transfer list | Whether the version is synchronized, and whether signatures or receipts are missing | Check the round version and receipt signatures of the transfer list, and confirm that it is the same version as the object checklist referenced by the score sheet and plan |
| Tool calling node connections | Whether the diamond interface is already connected to the target tool, and whether toolChoice and functionCall are triggered according to the description | Check the diamond connections and node status on the canvas, and run a test with a question missing a required parameter to observe whether it asks a follow-up question or calls according to the description |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same candidate's name, total score, or proposed admission major does not match between the score sheet and the transfer list. Cause: The two materials are maintained separately by the department and the transfer system, and field definitions and update times are not synchronized.
- Symptom: Multiple round versions of the transfer list appear, and the major names referenced in the plan are inconsistent with the wording in the list. Cause: The version is not synchronized, receipts are not written back, and the old version of the list remains in the comparison scope.
- Symptom: The re-examination plan or transfer list lacks signatures or receipts, and the discrepancy list cannot locate the responsible field. Cause: Signature fields and receipt fields are not included in the comparison, and values that do not exist in the materials appear in the tool return result.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: Run a test with a question missing a required parameter, check the input parameters and return in the call record, confirm whether it asks a follow-up question or calls according to the description, and check whether toolChoice, functionCall, and the three items of tool description, parameter descriptions, and whether required correspond.
Business test: Use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, and compare item by item the name, quantity, date, and signature fields of the re-examination plan, candidate score sheet, and transfer list.
- Open the description field in the tool node, check whether this description can be understood on its own, then open the parameter configuration one by one and check the two items of description and whether required.
- Run a test with a question missing that field to see whether it asks a follow-up question first rather than directly fabricating, and check the diamond connections and node status on the canvas.