What this category's data looks like
In the graduate admissions re-examination and admission scenario, material drafting and responsibility handover revolve around three core types of materials: the re-examination plan, the candidate score sheet, and the transfer list. The re-examination plan contains fields such as specialization direction, re-examination ratio, time and location, and composition of the review panel; the candidate score sheet contains fields such as candidate number, preliminary examination score, re-examination score, total score, and ranking; the transfer list contains fields such as transfer batch, original application unit, proposed admission major, and confirmation status. The three types of materials are updated by admissions batch: the plan is released before the re-examination, scores are summarized after the re-examination, and the list is dynamically adjusted during the transfer stage. When the materials enter the multi-turn dialogue and prompts feature, the re-examination plan serves as the rule basis, while the candidate score sheet and transfer list serve as the data verification objects; based on these, the model drafts signable drafts and handover records, and once the fields are complete, the responsible persons are clear, and the version and date are consistent, they are handed to the next stage for receipt.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the memory turns and prompts configuration in the application settings, which outputs the reference range of historical messages and the answer constraints. The signable material drafts and handover records are then completed by the model. The memory turns control how many previous turns of dialogue 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Re-examination plan | Whether the specialization direction, re-examination ratio, time and location, review panel composition, and signature fields are complete, and whether the version and date are consistent | Check field by field against the template, confirm the signature and receipt, and use messages to record the handover turns |
| Candidate score sheet | Whether the candidate number, preliminary examination score, re-examination score, total score, ranking, and signature are complete, and whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record match between the plan and the score sheet | Compare the two materials item by item by candidate number, check version synchronization, and use chatId to associate dialogues of the same batch |
| Transfer list | Whether the transfer batch, original application unit, proposed admission major, confirmation status, and signature receipt are complete, and whether the version is synchronized | Check whether the number of people and dates in the transfer list and the score sheet are consistent; if a signature or receipt is missing, block it, and use variables to mark fields to be supplemented |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same candidate do not match between the score sheet and the transfer list. Cause: The two materials were drafted separately, not compared field by field according to the same record, and the versions were not synchronized.
- Phenomenon: The re-examination plan has been updated, but the score sheet still references the old time and location. Cause: The versions were not synchronized, the date and version number were not checked during handover, and receipt confirmation was missing.
- Phenomenon: The material fields are complete but the signature or receipt is missing, and the next stage refuses to accept it. Cause: The signature fields were not checked against the template during drafting, and the handover record did not mark the responsible person.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Use two consecutive follow-up questions. The first question involves the time and location of the re-examination plan, and the second question uses a reference to carry it forward. See whether the second question inherits the reference from the first question, and check whether the references of the three identifiers messages, chatId, and variables in the historical message range are reasonable.
Business test: Draft one copy according to the template and complete one handover, and see whether missing items are blocked.
- In the application settings, check the current value of memory turns, match it with the preceding text range required by the question, and run a trial with two consecutive questions.
- Compare the usage records of two runs, confirm the consumption change after adjusting the turns, and check that the opening message is not treated as preceding text.