What this category's data looks like
In self-funded study abroad application services, material verification and discrepancy localization rely on three core types of materials: the study abroad service contract, the school application form, and the personal statement. The contract is provided by the service provider and contains the scope of services, fees, and signing date; the application form is generated from the school template and contains personal information, application batch, and signature field; the personal statement is written by the applicant and contains name, program name, and submission date. Materials enter the document parsing and chunking function as electronic documents; the contract and application form serve as the field and date baseline, while the personal statement serves as the narrative and supplementary information role. The update cadence changes with application batches, school requirements, and contract versions, and field characteristics include name, quantity, date, signature, and receipt status. After materials enter this function, they are first parsed into data rows and bound to a unique data identifier, then flow through the three index states for subsequent retrieval and discrepancy localization.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the parsing and training task (server-side task), outputting data rows and index states (parsed, indexing, indexed). The "discrepancy list" is then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing. After parsing is completed, parsing and chunking are immediately persisted as visible data rows and bound to a unique data identifier; the index flows through the three states, data pending indexing does not participate in recall, and changing the model only rebuilds data that has completed indexing.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Study abroad service contract | Name, quantity, date, and signature are consistent between the contract and the ledger | Check the contract fields against the ledger records, confirm the signing date and receipt status; check the impact of chunkSize and chunkSplitter on field splitting |
| School application form | The name, quantity, and date of the same record match between the application form and the contract | Compare the name, program quantity, and application date in the application form and the contract; confirm whether the signature field and receipt are missing; check trainingType and the index state |
| Personal statement | The name, program name, and date in the personal statement are consistent with the contract and application form | Compare the name, program name, and submission date in the personal statement with the contract and application form; check whether the version is synchronized; view whether the data row status is parsed, indexing, or indexed |
| Data rows and file records | The identities of file records and data rows are distinguishable, and the status is consistent with the interface display | Check file records and data rows separately, open the data row to check its status; confirm that the rebuild task only covers data that has completed indexing |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the contract and the application form. Cause: Material versions are not synchronized or the ledger baseline was not used for verification during entry, so field discrepancies were not discovered.
- Symptom: The program name and submission date in the personal statement and the contract are inconsistent. Cause: Versions are not synchronized, the old personal statement was not updated along with the contract, and the discrepancy list was not written back to the reviewer in time.
- Symptom: The application form is missing a signature or receipt, and the contract signing page has no receipt record. Cause: The signature and receipt steps were omitted during material circulation; although the data row is visible after parsing, the business fields are incomplete.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: upload one set of materials and observe the data row status transitions and the coverage scope of the rebuild task. Data rows should go through the three states parsed, indexing, and indexed; data pending indexing does not participate in recall; changing the model only rebuilds data that has completed indexing, and the data rows covered by the rebuild task are consistent with the interface display. Check the parsing and training parameters corresponding to the three identifiers chunkSize, chunkSplitter, and trainingType.
Business test: use one real record to find fields that are inconsistent with the ledger. Parse the contract, application form, and personal statement into data rows separately, compare the name, quantity, date, and signature of the same object, locate the discrepant fields, and hand them to the reviewer for confirmation and write-back.
- Open the data row to check its status, confirm it is in one of parsed, indexing, or indexed and is consistent with the interface display; check file records and data rows separately to confirm their identities are distinguishable.
- View the data rows covered by the rebuild task, confirm that only data that has completed indexing is covered; directly edit or delete data rows whose training failed, to avoid residual empty data rows affecting retrieval.