What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the enterprise self-directed skilled talent evaluation scenario. The core materials include the enterprise evaluation filing form, evaluation specifications, and the candidate roster. The filing form usually comes from the filing step of the human resources department and records the evaluation institution, occupation name, and filing date; the evaluation specifications are compiled by the technical committee and state the assessment methods, weights, and passing standards, and updates change with standard revisions; the roster is organized by examination affairs staff by batch and includes candidate names, ID numbers, declared levels, and signature fields. When the three types of materials enter Q&A intake, their roles differ: the filing form is used to confirm the evaluation subject and scope, the evaluation specifications are used to determine assessment requirements and scoring basis, and the roster is used to verify candidate identity and declared qualifications. Common fields in the materials include name, quantity, date, signature, and receipt. The update cadence is adjusted by batch or annually. Version synchronization and signature completeness are key checks before intake.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the app settings, and the output references the historical message range and answer constraints. The "intake record and completed question items" are then completed by the model. Memory turns control how many previous dialogue turns can be referenced at most when answering. If the value is too small, the preceding text cannot be used; if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise evaluation filing form | Whether the name, quantity, and date are consistent with the evaluation specifications and roster; whether signatures and receipts are complete | Check the current memory turns value in the app settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions, and check whether the second turn correctly inherits the reference from the first turn; compare the usage records of the two runs |
| Evaluation specifications | Whether the version is synchronized with the filing form; whether the assessment methods, weights, and passing standards match the declared levels in the roster | Run a trial with two consecutive questions. In the first turn, ask about the assessment weights in the evaluation specifications; in the second turn, use a reference to follow up on the passing standards for the same occupation, and observe whether the answer cites the preceding text |
| Candidate roster | Whether the candidate names, ID numbers, and declared levels match the filing form and evaluation specifications; whether the signature fields are complete | Check the current memory turns value in the app settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions. In the first turn, ask about the number of candidates in a certain batch; in the second turn, use a reference to follow up on the distribution of declared levels in that batch |
| App settings | Whether the memory turns and prompt configuration match the preceding text range required by the question | Check the current value in the app settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions, compare the usage records of the two runs, and confirm that usage changes accordingly after adjusting the turns |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The same candidate name is written inconsistently in the roster and the filing form. Cause: The two materials are entered in different steps, lacking unified field validation and receipt checking.
- Phenomenon: The evaluation specification version is not synchronized, and the old version's weights are still referenced. Cause: After the standard revision, the intake-side materials were not replaced in time, and the version identifier is missing.
- Phenomenon: The filing form lacks a signature or receipt but is still treated as complete material during intake. Cause: The material completeness check does not cover the signature field, and the intake record does not mark the missing item.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: two consecutive follow-up questions. In the first turn, ask about the assessment weights in the evaluation specifications for a certain occupation; in the second turn, use a reference to follow up on the passing standards for the same occupation, and see whether the second question inherits the reference from the first question; check the memory turns value in the app settings and confirm that chatId, messages, and variables are traceable in the intake record.
Business test: ask a question that lacks key information and see whether it first asks a follow-up before answering.
- Check the current memory turns value in the app settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions, check whether the second turn correctly inherits the reference from the first turn, and compare the usage records of the two runs.
- Check item by item the names, quantities, dates, and signatures of the filing form, evaluation specifications, and roster. When inconsistencies are found, mark the missing items in the intake record and forward them to the responsible person for handling.