What this category's data looks like
This category's data looks like this: University laboratory safety grading and classification involves three types of materials: the laboratory grading and classification table, the hazard source list, and the safety responsibility statement. The grading and classification table lists, by room and experimental activity, the level, hazard category, and responsible person; the hazard source list lists, by item or equipment, the name, quantity, storage location, and risk level; the safety responsibility statement lists, by level, the responsibility clauses, signing date, and signature field. The three types of materials come from different sources: the grading and classification table is periodically reported by the laboratory management department, the hazard source list is dynamically updated with experimental projects and reagent procurement, and the safety responsibility statement is re-signed according to the academic year or personnel changes. In terms of update cadence, the grading and classification table is reviewed per semester, the hazard source list is synchronized with batch and requisition records, and the responsibility statement is replaced immediately upon personnel adjustments. Field characteristics manifest as the same laboratory or the same hazard source appearing repeatedly across the three materials, where name wording, quantity units, date formats, and signature and receipt status are prone to discrepancies and require field-by-field comparison. After materials enter this function, they are first stored as files to be parsed, then form searchable data rows through chunking and indexing, for use in subsequent verification and discrepancy localization.
Configuration and implementation checks
Configuration and implementation checks: This step is executed by the parsing and training task (server-side task), outputting data rows and index status (parsed, indexing, indexed). The "discrepancy list" is then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing. After material parsing and chunking are completed, they are immediately stored as visible data rows and bound to a unique data identifier; the index transitions through three states, and data pending indexing does not participate in recall.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Laboratory grading and classification table | Check whether the laboratory name, room number, level, hazard category, responsible person, review date, and signature field correspond consistently with the hazard source list and safety responsibility statement | Open the data row to check whether the status is parsed, indexing, or indexed, and separately verify the identity identifiers of the file record and the data row |
| Hazard source list | Check whether the hazard source name, quantity, unit, storage location, and risk level are consistent with the ledger and the grading and classification table | Check the chunk boundaries according to chunkSize and chunkSplitter, and confirm that quantity and date fields are not truncated |
| Safety responsibility statement | Check whether the responsibility level, signer, signing date, signature, and receipt are complete, and whether the version is synchronized with the current grading and classification table | Check the training mode and the data rows covered by the rebuild task according to trainingType, and confirm that only data with completed indexing is covered |
| Data row status | Is in one of the three states parsed, indexing, or indexed and consistent with the interface display | Open the data row to check the status, and check whether the coverage scope of the rebuild task includes only data with completed indexing |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, or date of the same laboratory do not match between the grading and classification table and the hazard source list. Cause: The two materials are reported separately, the field definitions and update timings are not aligned, and there is no field-by-field comparison step.
- Symptom: The responsibility statement version is not synchronized, and the old responsibility clauses and signing date are still used. Cause: After personnel or level adjustments, it was not re-signed, and material replacement was not linked to the review cadence of the grading and classification table.
- Symptom: The safety responsibility statement lacks a signature or receipt, and the discrepancy list cannot be closed. Cause: The signing process and receipt archiving are separated, and no completeness check was performed before the materials entered parsing.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: Upload one material, see whether the data row status transitions through parsed, indexing, and indexed, and check whether the coverage scope of the rebuild task targets only data with completed indexing; at the same time, use chunkSize, chunkSplitter, and trainingType to check the chunking and training mode.
Business test: Use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, compare item by item the name, quantity, and date of the same laboratory or hazard source in the grading and classification table, hazard source list, and safety responsibility statement, form a discrepancy list, submit it to the reviewer for confirmation, and write it back.
- Open the data row to check whether the status is parsed, indexing, or indexed, and separately verify the identity identifiers of the file record and the data row.
- View the data rows covered by the rebuild task, confirm that only data with completed indexing is covered, and check whether the rebuild scope after changing models is isolated from data pending indexing.