What this category's data looks like
In the scenario of registration review for professional and technical personnel qualification examinations, materials usually come from registration system export tables, scanned academic certificates, and work-year certificates issued by employers. They are submitted centrally by batch and updated on a rolling basis as the review progresses. The registration form contains name, ID number, examination subjects, employer, and signature field; the academic certificate contains graduating institution, major, certificate number, issue date, and seal; the work-year certificate contains start and end dates, position, cumulative years, and the signature receipt of the person in charge. When these three types of materials enter this function, their roles differ: the registration form serves as the main record anchoring the same object, while the academic certificate and work-year certificate serve as comparison sources, used to verify field by field whether names, quantities, and dates are consistent, and to locate discrepant fields for the reviewer to confirm and write back.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the tool invocation node in the workflow (the model decides whether to invoke it, and the node executes it), outputting the tool invocation result (the input parameters and return in the invocation record). The tool description, parameter description, and whether it is required jointly determine whether an invocation is initiated this time. When there are no required parameters, the model may fabricate values on its own; when there are required parameters but the context is missing, it may not invoke. The "discrepancy list" is then completed by subsequent AI nodes or manual verification.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Registration form | The name, ID number, and examination subjects are consistent field by field with the academic certificate and work-year certificate, and the signature field has no missing items | Retrieve the input parameters and return from the tool invocation, align the three materials by field name, and mark items with inconsistent names or dates |
| Academic certificate | The graduating institution, major, certificate number, and issue date are consistent with the values filled in the registration form, and the seal and receipt are complete | Try running with a question missing a required parameter, check whether the invocation record asks a follow-up question first, then compare dates and numbers |
| Work-year certificate | The start and end dates and cumulative years are consistent with the work experience section of the registration form, and the signature of the person in charge and the receipt are not missing | Check the date and quantity fields in the tool invocation return, and locate records that do not match the ledger |
| Tool invocation node wiring | The diamond interface is connected to the target tool, the node status is consistent with the canvas wiring, and multiple tools connected in series do not cross over | On the canvas, check the diamond wiring and node status, and inspect the return attribution of toolChoice and functionCall |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The start and end dates of the same record do not match between the registration form and the work-year certificate, and the cumulative years deviate accordingly. Cause: The two materials were filled in by different handlers in batches, and the versions were not synchronized.
- Symptom: The certificate number or issue date of the academic certificate is inconsistent with the value filled in the registration form, and the name wording also differs. Cause: After the material was updated, it was not written back to the main record, and the discrepancy was not located field by field.
- Symptom: The work-year certificate lacks the signature of the person in charge or the receipt, and the signature field of the registration form is blank. Cause: The material collection step did not verify the completeness of signatures and receipts, and it directly entered comparison.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: Try running with a question missing a required parameter, check the input parameters and return in the invocation record, and confirm whether it asks a follow-up question or invokes according to the description; at the same time, check whether toolChoice and functionCall appear in the invocation record, and whether the returned values come from business materials.
Business test: Use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, compare item by item across the three categories of name, quantity, and date, mark the discrepancy locations, and submit them to the reviewer for confirmation before writing back.
- Open the description field and parameter configuration of each tool node one by one, check the three items of description, parameter description, and whether it is required, and confirm that the required parameters correspond to fields that actually exist in the business materials.
- On the canvas, check the diamond interface wiring and node status, and try running with a question missing that field to observe whether it asks a follow-up question first instead of directly fabricating values.