What this category's data looks like
In self-funded study abroad application services, the study abroad service contract, the school application form, and the personal statement are the three core types of materials. The contract is signed by the service provider and the applicant, and contains service items, fee terms, signatures of both parties, and dates; the application form is filled out by the applicant and submitted to the school, and contains name, date of birth, application program and quantity; the personal statement is written by the applicant, and contains an account of experiences, a timeline, and a signature. The three types of materials are produced in batches during the application cycle: the contract is updated upon signing, the application form is submitted in batches with online applications, and the personal statement is finalized after multiple rounds of revision. The name spelling, quantity basis, date format, and signature receipt status of the same record in the three materials are often inconsistent. After entering the knowledge base retrieval and recall function, each participates as an independent source in candidate chunk recall, for subsequent nodes or humans to perform material verification and discrepancy localization.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate chunks and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, re-rank, filter, and limit trimming). The discrepancy list is then completed by subsequent nodes or humans.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Study abroad service contract | Name, quantity, date, and signature are consistent between the contract and the ledger | In the search test, retrieve with a question about contract fields, view candidate chunks and scores, and verify the signature and date fields |
| School application form | The name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent with the contract | Switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, and hybrid and test each once, and compare whether the candidates cover the key fields of the application form |
| Personal statement | When versions are not synchronized, the name and date are inconsistent with the final draft | Compare the ranking of the top few results before and after enabling usingReRank, and confirm that the final draft chunk ranks near the top |
| Retrieval node | The number of candidates and scores are reproducible, and key chunks are retained after citation limit trimming | Record the number of candidates and the similarity score, record the array length separately, and verify the cited text tokens and the limit setting |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the contract and the application form. Cause: The two materials are filled in at different stages, and the field basis was not uniformly verified.
- Symptom: Personal statement versions are not synchronized, and the old draft and the final draft are recalled at the same time. Cause: Revised drafts are not labeled with versions, and retrieval does not filter by time or status.
- Symptom: The contract lacks a signature or the application form lacks a receipt, yet candidate chunks are still cited. Cause: Material completeness was not verified before retrieval, and recall only looks at text similarity.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: test once each with synonym-rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle re-ranking on and off to inspect the ranking of the top few results.
Business test: use one real record to find fields that are inconsistent with the ledger.
- In the search test, retrieve the same field once each with different phrasings, record the number of candidates and the
similarityscore, and verify whether the same record is hit. - Switch
searchModeand toggleusingReRankon and off, compare the order of the top few candidates, and confirm that key chunks are not trimmed bylimit.