What this category's data looks like
In the material verification and discrepancy localization step, university admissions physical examination organizations mainly handle three types of materials: physical examination forms, re-examination applications, and restricted-major notifications. Physical examination forms are issued by the examining hospital or the school hospital and are entered in batches by admissions batch; their fields include candidate name, physical examination conclusion, restricted conclusion, chief examining physician signature, and date. Re-examination applications are submitted by candidates or middle schools; their fields include application reason, original physical examination conclusion, application date, and review signature. Restricted-major notifications are issued by the admissions office; their fields include notified major, basis for restriction, receipt signature, and receipt date. The three types of materials update at different rhythms: physical examination forms are imported in batches by batch, re-examination applications are submitted at any time by individual candidates, and restricted-major notifications are written back in a concentrated manner before admission. When entering this function, the physical examination form serves as the baseline material, while re-examination applications and restricted-major notifications serve as comparison materials, each assuming the roles of source and supporting evidence, and are used to locate discrepancies in name, quantity, and date for the same candidate across the two materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the tool call node in the workflow (the model decides whether to call it, and the node executes it), outputting the tool call result (the input parameters and return in the call record). The "discrepancy list" is then completed by a subsequent AI node or manual verification.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Physical examination form | Check whether the candidate name, physical examination conclusion, restricted conclusion, chief examining physician signature, and date are consistent with the ledger | Open the tool node introduction fields and confirm the description is readable on its own; check the parameter introduction and whether it is required, and run a test with a query missing the physical examination conclusion to see whether it asks a follow-up question first |
| Re-examination application | Check whether the application reason, original physical examination conclusion, application date, and review signature are consistent with the corresponding fields in the physical examination form | Open each parameter configuration one by one and check the two items: introduction and whether it is required; check the diamond connector and node status on the canvas to confirm it is connected to the target tool |
| Restricted-major notification | Check whether the notified major, basis for restriction, receipt signature, and receipt date are consistent with the physical examination form and re-examination application | Run a test with a query missing the receipt date to see whether it asks a follow-up question first; check whether the returned result contains values that do not exist in the business materials |
| Tool call node connection | The diamond interface is connected to the target tool, and the node status is readable | Check the diamond connector and node status on the canvas; check the values and returns of toolChoice and functionCall in the call record |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name, physical examination conclusion, and date for the same candidate do not match between the physical examination form and the re-examination application. Cause: the two materials come from different sources, no field-level comparison was performed during entry, and the model answered directly without calling the tool.
- Symptom: the version of the restricted-major notification was not synchronized, and the receipt signature or receipt date is missing. Cause: notification materials are written back in a concentrated manner before admission, and version updates were not linked with the physical examination form and re-examination application.
- Symptom: the returned result contains values that do not exist in the business materials, and after multiple tools are chained, the results cross-contaminate each other. Cause: marking a parameter as required does not guarantee the model will ask a follow-up question; it must be guided by the prompt, and a tool call is not equal to scheduled execution.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this function: run a test with a query missing required parameters, check the input parameters and return in the call record, and confirm whether it asks a follow-up question or calls according to the introduction; check the values of toolChoice and functionCall in the call record.
Business test: use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, focusing on comparing the name, quantity, date, and signature across the physical examination form, re-examination application, and restricted-major notification.
- Open the tool node introduction fields and check whether the description can be understood when taken out on its own, confirming the purpose, when it should be used, and what result it returns.
- Open each parameter configuration one by one and check the two items: introduction and whether it is required, confirming that they correspond to fields that actually exist in the business materials.