What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on drafting materials and handover of responsibility in student disciplinary and appeal handling, involving three types of documents: disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision letters, and appeal statements, as well as signable material drafts and handover records. Disciplinary fact materials are usually compiled by investigators, recording time, location, behavior description, and evidence list; disciplinary decision letters are drafted by the drafter based on the fact materials and regulatory clauses, and must specify the disciplinary basis, effective date, and signatory; appeal statements are submitted by the student or agent, containing the appeal request, reasons, and receipt information. When the three types of materials enter the knowledge base retrieval service, each serves as a source of candidate snippets for subsequent nodes or manual retrieval, comparison, and citation. The material update pace follows the progress of the incident, from preliminary verification to decision delivery and appeal acceptance, with fields increasing or decreasing according to the stage. Field characteristics center on name, student ID, reason, clauses, date, signature, and receipt; the name, quantity, and date of the same record in different materials must remain consistent.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate snippets and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming). Signable material drafts and handover records are completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Fields complete: time, location, behavior, evidence, signature, and date consistent | In the search test, switch searchMode, test once each with synonymous questions, record the number of candidates and scores, and check whether the fact fields are recalled |
| Disciplinary decision letter | Clauses, disciplinary type, effective date, and signatory fields complete; version synchronized with fact materials | Compare the ranking of the top few items before and after enabling usingReRank, check whether the key paragraphs of the decision letter are retained; check the tokens of the cited text after similarity filtering, and record the array count separately |
| Appeal statement | Appeal request, reasons, receipt, and signature fields complete; date consistent with the disciplinary decision letter | Search with appeal-related questions, confirm that candidates include both semantic and full-text results; check the number of cited items after limit trimming, and confirm that receipt and signature snippets are not truncated |
| Handover record | Responsible person, handover time, version number, and receipt status clear | Retrieve the handover record template, check the responsible person field and version date in candidate snippets; confirm that the handover key points remain complete after citation limit trimming |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name or student ID of the same student does not match between the disciplinary fact materials and the disciplinary decision letter. Cause: The two materials were drafted separately, and field comparison and version verification were not performed during retrieval.
- Phenomenon: The disciplinary decision letter has been updated, but the appeal statement still cites the old version of clauses and dates. Cause: The version was not synchronized, and the retrieval recalled historical snippets without pointing to the latest draft.
- Phenomenon: The handover record lacks the recipient's signature or receipt information, and the next step cannot be signed for. Cause: The signature field was omitted during drafting, and retrieval did not block the missing item.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle rerank to see the ranking of the top few items; record the number of candidates and scores, and check the effects of similarity, limit, and usingReRank.
Business test: draft one according to the template and complete one handover, and see whether missing items are blocked.
- In the search test, switch
searchMode, compare the number of candidates and scores with synonymous questions, and confirm that both semantic and full-text results are recalled. - Compare the ranking of the top few items before and after enabling
usingReRank, check the tokens of the cited text aftersimilarityfiltering andlimittrimming, and record the array count separately.