What this category's data looks like
This page addresses intake materials for self-funded study abroad application services. Sources include study abroad service contracts, school application forms, personal statements, and the intake records and supplemented question items formed during the intake process. The update cadence advances with application batches and supplementary document receipts; contract signing, application form submission, and statement finalization each generate their own dates and signature nodes. When materials enter this feature, their roles differ: the study abroad service contract provides the delegation relationship, service scope, and signing date, and is used to verify the application subject and authorization; the school application form provides the institution, program, admission season, and submission status, and is used to identify missing items; the personal statement provides the text version and signature confirmation, and is used to determine whether the materials are complete. Field characteristics center on names, quantities, dates, and signatures: the same record may have different names in the contract and the application form, quantities and dates may not match, and when versions are not synchronized or signatures or receipts are missing, the intake record cannot be directly transferred to the handler.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turn count and prompt configuration in the application settings, and the output references the historical message range and answer constraints. The "intake record and supplemented question items" are then completed by the model. The memory turn count controls how many previous turns of dialogue can be referenced at most when answering; if the value is too small, the preceding text cannot be used, and if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Study abroad service contract | The name, date, and signature must be consistent with the intake record, and the service scope can be checked | Check the current memory turn count value in the application settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions, and check whether the contract fields are correctly referenced |
| School application form | The institution, program, admission season, and submission status must correspond to the contract record, and missing items should be identified | Compare the usage records of two runs, and check how the application form fields are carried over in messages and variables |
| Personal statement | The version must be synchronized, and when the signature or receipt is missing, a follow-up question should be triggered | Run a trial with two consecutive questions, confirm that the second question can carry over the reference from the first question, and check the statement version and signature status |
| Intake record and supplemented question items | Missing items are identified and followed up on, the answer has a material basis, and it can be transferred to the handler for processing | Check the current memory turn count value in the application settings, and check the historical message range and answer constraints corresponding to chatId |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the contract and the application form. Cause: During intake, fields were not checked item by item, and after the two materials were entered separately, no cross-comparison was made.
- Symptom: The personal statement version is not synchronized, and the intake record references an old draft. Cause: The update cadence is out of step with the application batch, the new version was not written back to the intake record, and the old version remains in the historical message range.
- Symptom: Answers continue to be given when the signature or receipt is missing. Cause: The prompt configuration does not list signatures and receipts as mandatory checks, the model lacks a basis for follow-up questions, and it directly gives a completion conclusion.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: ask two consecutive follow-up questions and see whether the second question carries over the reference from the first question; check the historical message range in messages and variables to confirm that the answer constraints take effect.
Business test: submit a question that lacks key information and see whether it asks a follow-up question before answering.
- Check the current memory turn count value in the application settings, match it with the preceding text range required by the question, and compare the usage records of two runs.
- Run a trial with two consecutive questions, check whether the second round can correctly carry over the reference from the first round, and confirm that the opening message is not treated as preceding text.