What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on undergraduate program setup and dynamic adjustment. Materials include program setup application forms, talent cultivation plans, expert review opinions, as well as draft materials that can be issued and handover records. Application forms come from department applications, talent cultivation plans come from teaching units, and expert review opinions come from review panels. The update rhythm is synchronized with application batches and adjustment windows. Field characteristics center on program name, code, degree-granting category, enrollment scale, course credits, review date, signatures, and receipts. When materials enter the response limit feature, their roles differ: application forms and review opinions serve as context sources for long-text drafts, talent cultivation plans provide course and credit fields, and handover records are used to check versions and dates.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by application settings (response limit, etc.), which output the length of a single answer and the range of context that can be accommodated. "Draft materials that can be issued and handover records" are then completed by the model.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup application form | Fields are complete, responsible persons are clear, version and date are consistent, and the program name, code, and enrollment scale correspond item by item with those in the talent cultivation plan | In application settings, check the response limit switch and slider position, and check whether the signature field and receipt of the application form are complete |
| Talent cultivation plan | Course credits, degree-granting category, and review date are consistent with the same record name, quantity, and date in the expert review opinions | Compare the course and credit fields of the two materials, and check whether the values of maxResponse and quoteMaxToken match the needs of long answers |
| Expert review opinions | Signatures and receipts are complete, version and date are synchronized, and there are no missing signatures or unsynchronized versions | Check the signature page and receipt of the review opinions, and use maxContext to check whether the context range covers the entire opinion |
| Draft materials that can be issued and handover records | Fields are complete, responsible persons are clear, version and date are consistent, and they can be handed over to the next stage for signing and receipt | Draft one according to the template and complete one handover to see whether missing items are blocked |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: the same program name is written differently in the application form and the talent cultivation plan. Cause: the two materials are maintained separately, and field alignment has not been done.
- Phenomenon: the number of courses or enrollment scale does not match between the two materials. Cause: the update rhythm is not synchronized, and the old version has not been withdrawn.
- Phenomenon: expert review opinions lack signatures or receipts. Cause: the signature page was not checked during handover, and the version and date were not synchronized.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: ask a question that requires a long answer, see whether the ending is complete, and confirm that the response limit matches the answer length required by the page.
Business test: draft one according to the template and complete one handover to see whether missing items are blocked.
- In application settings, check the response limit switch and slider position, and confirm that they match the answer length required by the page.
- Ask a question that requires a long answer, see whether the ending is complete, and compare the usage changes between two runs.