What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on the journal three-stage review and three-stage proofreading and editorial quality scenario. The material sources are three types of editorial archives: the three-stage review form, the proof, and the proofreading record, and the update cadence refreshes in sync with the circulation of each issue's manuscripts. The three-stage review form carries the fields, dates, and signatures of the initial review, re-review, and final review; the proof carries layout and text modification traces; the proofreading record carries the responsible person and receipt for each proofreading round. When these three types of materials enter the tool calling and plugin feature, the three-stage review form provides process nodes and signing information, the proof provides the basis for modifications and version identifiers, and the proofreading record provides proofreading rounds and receipt fields, jointly supporting field comparison and follow-up judgment in the Q&A acceptance and missing-item follow-up step.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the tool calling node in the workflow (the model decides whether to call, and the node executes), outputting the tool call result (the inputs and returns in the call record). "Acceptance records and items to be completed" are then handled by subsequent AI nodes or manual verification. Based on the tool description, parameter descriptions, and whether parameters are required, the model judges whether to call the tool this time.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Three-stage review form | Whether fields, dates, and signatures are complete, and whether the names of the initial review, re-review, and final review are consistent with the proof | Check the signing dates and signature fields of the three-stage review form item by item, compare the records with the same name in the proof and the proofreading record, and confirm there are no missing signatures or receipts |
| Proof | Whether the version is in sync, and whether the modification traces match the quantity and dates in the proofreading record | Open the proof to check the version identifier, compare it item by item with the proofreading round dates in the proofreading record, and mark for follow-up when a quantity or date inconsistency is found |
| Proofreading record | Whether the responsible person, receipt, and signature for each proofreading round are complete, and whether the names are consistent with the three-stage review form | Check the proofreading round fields and receipt status of the proofreading record, and confirm that the name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent across the three-stage review form and the proof |
| Tool calling node connections | The diamond interface is connected to the target tool, and the node status and tool description are readable | Check the diamond connections and node status on the canvas, inspect the three items of tool description, parameter description, and whether required, and run a test question missing a required parameter to observe the call records of toolChoice and functionCall |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the three-stage review form and the proof. Cause: The two materials are entered separately, no field-level comparison is performed, and missing items are not identified and followed up.
- Symptom: The proof version is not in sync, and the proofreading record still points to the old version. Cause: The version identifier is not refreshed with modifications, and the values returned by the tool call are inconsistent with the business materials.
- Symptom: The three-stage review form lacks a signature or the proofreading record lacks a receipt. Cause: Marking a parameter as required does not guarantee the model will follow up; it depends on prompt guidance, otherwise the model answers directly.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: Run a test question missing a required parameter, check the inputs and returns in the call record, and confirm whether it follows up or calls according to the description; check the call records of toolChoice and functionCall to confirm there are no fabricated values.
Business test: Ask a question missing key information and see whether it follows up before answering.
- Open the description field in the tool node, check whether this description can be understood on its own, and confirm the purpose, when it should be used, and the return result.
- Open each parameter configuration one by one, check the two items of description and whether required, and run a test question missing that field to observe whether it follows up first.