What this category's data looks like
Research achievement registration and intellectual property management involves three core types of materials: achievement registration forms, patent disclosure documents, and software copyright materials. Achievement registration forms are submitted by the project team at milestones, and contain the achievement name, completers, date, and signature; patent disclosure documents are updated along with the application process, and contain the invention name, technical solution, and inventor signature; software copyright materials are synchronized during version iterations, and contain the software name, version number, and ownership. The fields of the three types of materials overlap, and names, quantities, dates, and signatures need to be compared item by item. When the materials enter the tool calling stage, each serves as an independent input source, read by the tool calling node according to parameters and returned as results for subsequent comparison. The update cadence is driven by project milestones and application progress; unsynchronized versions, missing signatures, or missing receipts are common states.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the tool calling node in the workflow (the model decides whether to call it, and the node executes it), outputting the tool call result (the inputs and returns in the call record). The discrepancy list is then completed by a subsequent AI node or manual verification.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Achievement registration form | The name, quantity, date, and signature need to be aligned item by item with the patent disclosure document and software copyright materials | Read the registration form fields, compare them with the ledger records, and mark discrepancies in name, quantity, and date |
| Patent disclosure document | The invention name, technical solution, and inventor signature need to be consistent with the registration form and software copyright materials | Extract the key fields of the disclosure document, check whether the signature and receipt are complete, and record missing items |
| Software copyright materials | The software name, version number, and ownership need to be synchronized with the registration form and disclosure document | Compare the version number and date, and check for unsynchronized versions or fields that do not match |
| Tool calling node | Decide whether to call based on the tool description, parameter description, and whether it is required | Check the diamond-shaped connections and node status on the canvas, and check the toolChoice and functionCall configuration |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the registration form and the disclosure document. Cause: The two materials are filled in by different roles at different milestones, and the field definitions are not unified.
- Symptom: The version number of the software copyright materials is inconsistent with the registration form record. Cause: After a version iteration, it was not synchronized and updated, and the materials still use the old version fields.
- Symptom: The disclosure document lacks the inventor's signature or the registration form lacks a receipt. Cause: The signing process was not completed, and the materials entered the verification stage early.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: run a trial with a question missing a required parameter, check the inputs and returns in the call record, confirm whether it asks a follow-up question or calls according to the description, and check whether toolChoice and functionCall take effect as expected.
Business test: use a real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, verify the name, quantity, date, and signature, and record the discrepancy items.
- Open the parameter configuration one by one, check the two items of parameter description and whether it is required, and confirm that they correspond to the business material fields.
- Run a trial with a question missing that field, and see whether the tool calling node asks a follow-up question first instead of directly fabricating parameter values.