What this category's data looks like
In the enrollment and filing stage of general higher education institution admissions, materials mainly consist of enrollment plans, filing rules, and admission rosters. Enrollment plans come from provincial admissions authorities and submissions by higher education institutions, updated by batch and subject category, with fields including institution code, major code, planned number, elective subject requirements, and campus location. Filing rules come from batch filing measures and parallel volunteer explanations issued by provincial admissions offices, updated by year and batch, with fields including filing ratio, tie-breaking sorting items, volunteer unit, and filing line criteria. Admission rosters come from exports of higher education institution admission systems and provincial filing receipts, updated by round, with fields including candidate number, name, admitted major, admission date, and signature and seal positions. When the three types of materials enter this function, enrollment plans and filing rules serve as the comparison baseline, and admission rosters serve as the object to be verified, jointly supporting item-by-item comparison and discrepancy localization of names, quantities, and dates.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by application settings (response limit, etc.), outputting the length of a single answer and the range of context that can be accommodated. The discrepancy list is then completed by the model, and entry and authorization are handled by the publishing service and file permissions. The response limit is controlled by a slider for the length of a single answer; if set too low, answers will be truncated, and if set too high, consumption will increase.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enrollment plan | Whether institution code, major code, planned number, elective subject requirements, and date correspond item by item with the admission roster | Check the switch and slider position in application settings, retrieve the two materials and compare by field, and record discrepancies in names, quantities, and dates |
| Filing rules | Whether filing ratio, tie-breaking sorting items, volunteer unit, and filing line criteria are consistent with the admission roster batch | Check the rule version number and effective date, mark entries whose versions are not synchronized, and register discrepancy fields |
| Admission roster | Whether candidate number, name, admitted major, admission date, and signature and seal positions are complete and consistent with the baseline | Compare the completeness of signatures and receipts, register discrepancies for missing items, and check truncation behavior under maxContext and maxResponse |
| Discrepancy list | Whether the names, quantities, and dates of the same object are consistent in the two materials | Aggregate discrepancies by object, record the number of citations separately, and quoteMaxToken only verifies the tokens of the cited text |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The major name, planned number, and date for the same candidate do not match between the admission roster and the enrollment plan. Cause: The two materials are entered in different stages, and field criteria and update timings are not aligned.
- Symptom: The filing rule version is inconsistent with the batch version used by the admission roster. Cause: Versions are not synchronized, the old rule version is still referenced, and switching is not performed according to the effective date.
- Symptom: The admission roster lacks signatures or receipts, and the discrepancy list cannot be closed. Cause: The material circulation stage has not completed receipt confirmation, and receipts are not archived with the roster.
How to verify the setup
This function acceptance: ask a question that requires a long answer, see whether the ending is complete, confirm that the response limit matches the answer length required by the page, and observe changes in runtime consumption.
Business test: use a real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, register discrepancies in names, quantities, and dates, then submit them to the reviewer for confirmation and write-back.
- Check the response limit switch and slider position in application settings, compare the usage of two runs, and confirm truncation behavior and runtime consumption.
- Compare field by field according to enrollment plans, filing rules, and admission rosters, record discrepancies, and submit them to the reviewer for confirmation before write-back.