What this category's data looks like
This category's data involves three types of materials: the enterprise evaluation filing form, the evaluation specification, and the candidate roster. The filing form comes from the human resources and social security filing receipt and is updated with each batch; the evaluation specification is issued by the enterprise technical committee, and its version number and effective date are key fields; the roster is locked by the examination affairs team after the registration deadline and contains name, ID number, declared level, and payment status. When the three types of materials enter the discrepancy localization function, their roles differ: the filing form serves as the baseline ledger, the specification provides field definitions and date rules, and the roster serves as the object to be verified. Field characteristics are concentrated in names, quantities, dates, signatures, and receipt numbers; the update rhythm follows batches as the cycle. When an old version of the specification is reused across batches or the roster signatures are not synchronized, discrepancy localization requires field-by-field comparison rather than whole-table replacement.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed 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 is controlled by a slider for the length of a single answer; if set too low, the answer will be truncated, and if set too high, consumption will increase.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise evaluation filing form | Whether the name, quantity, date, and signature are consistent with the evaluation specification | Check the signature column and receipt number of the filing form, compare the effective date of the specification; record the values of maxContext and quoteMaxToken |
| Evaluation specification | Whether the version number and effective date match the roster lock date | Check whether the specification version is synchronized to the current batch, compare date fields one by one; confirm that maxResponse corresponds to the answer length |
| Candidate roster | Whether the same candidate's name, declared level, and quantity match the filing form | Extract one real record, check name, ID number, and payment status; mark entries missing signatures or receipts |
| Discrepancy list | Whether inconsistent fields in name, quantity, and date are listed one by one | Group the comparison results by field, submit them to the reviewer for confirmation, and write them back to the ledger |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same candidate's name or ID number does not match between the filing form and the roster. Cause: The two materials were entered at different times, and no field-level comparison was performed.
- Symptom: The evaluation specification version is not synchronized, and the old version's date conflicts with the roster lock date. Cause: Only some materials were replaced during the batch update.
- Symptom: The filing form lacks a signature or the roster lacks a receipt, so the discrepancy list cannot be confirmed. Cause: Signatures and receipts were not included in the verification fields.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: ask a question that requires a long answer, see whether the ending is complete, and confirm that the response limit matches maxResponse.
Business test: use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, and verify name, quantity, and date item by item.
- In application settings, check the response limit switch and slider position, and confirm they match the answer length required by the page.
- Compare usage from two runs, confirm the change in single-run consumption after adjusting the limit, and record the values of
maxContextandquoteMaxToken.