What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the vocational college skills competition organization scenario. The material sources are competition regulations, registration forms, and training plans. The update cadence follows competition event notices and registration batches. Field characteristics center on names, quantities, dates, and signatures. After entering retrieval, competition regulations take on the role of rule basis, used to answer registration eligibility, competition schedule milestones, and material requirements; registration forms take on the role of roster and headcount basis, used to answer participating team composition and missing information; training plans take on the role of time and signature basis, used to answer training arrangements and receipt status. During Q&A intake, the three types of materials jointly support missing-item identification and follow-up questions, and answers need to land on specific material fragments before being forwarded to the handling staff.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate fragments and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and upper-limit trimming). The intake record and the completed question items are then handled by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Competition regulations | Whether the same competition event name, date, and signature are consistent across multiple regulations | In the search test, test once each with synonymous questions, check the competition event name, date, and signature field in the candidate fragments, and record the number of candidates and the similarity score |
| Registration form | Whether the team name, headcount, and receipt in the registration form align with the regulation requirements | Switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, and hybrid, compare whether the candidates simultaneously contain roster and headcount fragments, and check fields missing signatures or receipts |
| Training plan | Whether the dates, quantities, and signatures in the training plan are synchronized with the registration batch | Compare the top few rankings before and after enabling usingReRank, confirm whether key passages are retained, and record the number of candidates after limit trimming |
| Retrieval node | Whether the candidate fragments cover the fields required for missing-item follow-up questions | Test recall with different phrasings of the same question, observe changes in candidates and scores, and confirm that the cited content can support the follow-up question before answering |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the same competition event name does not match between the regulations and the registration form. Cause: the two materials' versions are not synchronized, and retrieval hits fragments from different batches.
- Symptom: the training plan dates are inconsistent with the registration batch. Cause: the materials have different update cadences, and old-version fragments are still recalled and ranked at the top.
- Symptom: the registration form is missing a signature or receipt, yet the answer still gives a complete conclusion. Cause: the missing item was not identified, and the key fields were not asked about first.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare candidates and similarity scores, then toggle rerank to observe the top few rankings, and record the number of candidates and the tokens of the cited text.
Business test: ask a question missing key information and see whether it asks a follow-up question first before answering.
- In the knowledge base search test, switch
searchModeand compare the three candidate results: semantic, full-text, and hybrid. - Check the number of candidates after
limittrimming and the ranking before and afterusingReRank, and confirm that key passages are still in the cited content.