What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of material drafting and responsibility handover in credit management for primary and secondary school teacher training, involving three types of materials: training notices, credit recognition forms, and participant lists. Training notices are drafted by the training management department, specifying the training name, start and end dates, target participants, and credit hours; credit recognition forms are filled out by the school where the participating teacher works or by the training unit, recording the credit type, basis for recognition, and review signature; participant lists serve as attachments, listing each person's name, unit, ID document number, and sign-in status. The three types of materials reference each other during drafting, and once they enter the handover stage, the receiving party must verify them item by item, confirming that fields are complete, responsible persons are clearly identified, and versions and dates are consistent. The material update rhythm is typically centralized drafting after each training session ends, followed by submission after in-school review, with handover records flowing in sync with the materials. Field characteristics center on name, unit, training name, credit hours, dates, and signature fields; any inconsistency in any field between two materials will cause the receipt stage to be returned.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, outputting the reference historical message range and answer constraints. The material drafts and handover records that can be issued are then completed by the model. Memory turns control how many previous dialogue turns are referenced at most when answering; too small a value fails to use prior context, while too large a value brings in irrelevant content and increases consumption.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Training notice | Whether the training name, start and end dates, target participants, and credit hours are consistent with the credit recognition form, and whether the signature fields are complete | Verify item by item against the credit recognition form, check the memory turns value in the application settings, and confirm whether the prior context range covers the notice fields during continuous follow-up questions |
| Credit recognition form | Whether the credit type, basis for recognition, review signature, and date match the participant list, and whether the versions are in sync | Retrieve the participant list to compare names, units, and credit hours, check whether signatures and receipts are missing, and use two consecutive question turns to test field references |
| Participant list | Whether names, units, ID document numbers, and sign-in status correspond one by one with the training notice and credit recognition form | Verify each person on the list against the notice and recognition form, confirm that quantities and dates are consistent, record the array length, and separately verify the tokens of the referenced text |
| Handover record | Whether the receiving party, handover date, material version, and missing-item description are complete, and whether the responsible person is clearly identified | Complete one handover, check whether missing items are blocked, and verify the correspondence of chatId, messages, and variables in the record |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The same teacher's name or unit is written inconsistently in the training notice and the participant list. Cause: The field source was not unified during drafting, and item-by-item comparison was not performed before handover.
- Phenomenon: The credit hours quantity and training dates in the credit recognition form and the participant list do not match. Cause: The two materials were drafted separately, versions were not synchronized, and the date fields were not checked during handover.
- Phenomenon: The training notice lacks a signature or receipt, and the handover record has no confirmation from the receiving party. Cause: No receipt action was set in the material circulation step, and missing items were not blocked.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Use two consecutive follow-up questions to see whether the second question inherits the reference from the first question, and whether the answer to the second question using the reference is irrelevant.
Business test: Draft one copy according to the template and complete one handover to see whether missing items are blocked; only after fields are complete, the responsible person is clearly identified, and versions and dates are consistent can it be signed for receipt.
- Check the memory turns value in the application settings, match it with the prior context range required by the question, and compare the usage records of two runs after adjustment.
- Use two consecutive question turns to test, confirm that the second turn correctly inherits the reference from the first turn, and check whether the opening message is treated as prior context.