What this category's data looks like
This page covers three types of materials in student disciplinary and appeal handling: disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements. Disciplinary fact materials are formed during the investigation stage, recording the time, location, behavior, and evidence list; disciplinary decision documents are drafted during the deliberation stage, stating the basis clauses, types of disciplinary action, and effective date; appeal statements are submitted by students or their representatives, including demands, reasons, and an attachment list. All three types of materials contain the party's name, event name, involved quantity, date, and signature field. The update rhythm advances in sync with investigation supplements, deliberation revisions, and appeal acceptance, and each revision should generate a new version and retain a receipt. When entering the multi-turn dialogue and prompt feature, disciplinary fact materials serve as the factual draft, disciplinary decision documents serve as the conclusion skeleton, and appeal statements serve as the reverse verification checklist, and together the three constrain the draft fields and the responsible handover person.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, outputting the reference range of historical messages and answer constraints. The material drafts and handover records that can be issued are then completed by the model. The 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, and if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Fields are complete: the party's name, event name, involved quantity, date, and signature field correspond item by item; the name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent in the disciplinary decision document and the appeal statement | Check the current memory turns value in the application settings, use messages and variables to organize the first-round factual fields, and check whether missing items are blocked |
| Disciplinary decision document | Version and date are consistent: the basis clauses, types of disciplinary action, effective date, and version number of the disciplinary fact materials are synchronized; signatures and receipts are not missing | Run a trial with two consecutive follow-up questions, with the second round using references to carry forward the types of disciplinary action and date from the first round, and check whether the historical message range under chatId matches |
| Appeal statement | Fields are complete: demands, reasons, attachment list, date, and signature field correspond; when the name, quantity, and date do not match those in the disciplinary decision document, review is triggered | Compare the usage records of two runs, confirm that consumption changes accordingly after adjusting the turns, and check whether the date fields of the appeal statement and the decision document are synchronized |
| Handover record | Responsible persons are clear: the drafter, reviewer, and recipient are filled in item by item; the version number and date are consistent, and the receipt is complete | Draft one according to the template and complete one handover, see whether missing items are blocked, and confirm that no fields are omitted before the next stage signs for receipt |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: the name and quantity of the same record do not match in the disciplinary fact materials and the disciplinary decision document. Cause: the two were drafted separately, and the same version field was not used for backfilling.
- Phenomenon: the date was changed in the disciplinary decision document, but the appeal statement still references the old version. Cause: the version was not synchronized, and the version number and date were not checked during handover.
- Phenomenon: materials lack a signature or receipt, and the next stage cannot sign for receipt. Cause: the responsible person field was not fully filled in, and the handover record did not flow together with the draft.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: with two consecutive follow-up questions, see whether the second question carries forward the references from the first question, and check the values of messages and variables within the historical message range.
Business test: draft one according to the template and complete one handover, and see whether missing items are blocked.
- Check the current memory turns value in the application settings, and confirm that it matches the preceding text range required by the question.
- Draft one according to the template and complete one handover, and check whether the name, quantity, date, and signature field of the disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision document, and appeal statement are consistent.