What this category's data looks like
Graduate training process management involves materials such as training plans, thesis proposals, and mid-term assessment forms, sourced from supervisor submissions, college archives, and system ledgers, with updates advancing according to semester milestones. Training plans determine course and credit arrangements, thesis proposals record topic selection and argumentation, and mid-term assessment forms reflect stage progress and signatures. When these three types of materials enter the knowledge base retrieval and recall function, each participates in recall as an independent candidate source, used for subsequent comparison of field consistency for the same record in terms of name, quantity, date, signature, and receipt, supporting discrepancy localization and review write-back.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate snippets and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming). The discrepancy list is completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Training plan | Course names, credit quantities, start and end dates, and signature fields are consistent across the two materials | In the search test, switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, or hybrid, compare candidate snippets and similarity scores, and record field discrepancies |
| Thesis proposal | Topic names, reference counts, proposal dates, and signature receipts are consistent across the two materials | Enable or disable usingReRank to compare the ranking of the top few results, and check whether candidates include both semantic and full-text results |
| Mid-term assessment form | Assessment conclusions, credit quantities, assessment dates, and signature fields are consistent across the two materials | Check the number of returned candidates and scores, and verify whether the tokens of the quoted text after limit trimming retain key fields |
| System ledger | The name, quantity, date, and signature status of the same record are consistent with the materials | Use one real record to compare candidate snippets field by field, locate fields inconsistent with the ledger, and submit to the reviewer for confirmation |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The credit quantities for the same record in the training plan and mid-term assessment form do not match. Cause: The two material versions are not synchronized, and the old version was not replaced.
- Symptom: The topic name in the thesis proposal and the ledger is written differently. Cause: The name is not unified, and the recall candidates do not cover the correct snippet.
- Symptom: The mid-term assessment form lacks a signature or receipt. Cause: It was not completed at the time of archiving, and retrieval still returns candidates but fields are missing.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: Test once each with synonym-rewritten questions, compare the number of candidates and similarity scores, then toggle usingReRank to observe changes in the ranking of the top few results.
Business test: Use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, record candidate snippets and scores, and submit to the reviewer for confirmation and write-back.
- In the search test, switch
searchModeand compare the number of candidates and scores across semantic, full-text, and hybrid modes. - Check the tokens of the quoted text after
limittrimming, separately record the number of candidates in the array, and verify whether key fields are retained.