What this category's data looks like
The data in this category looks like this: Graduate training process management involves materials such as training plans, proposal reports, and mid-term assessment forms. Sources are supervisors, school secretaries, and management systems, and the update rhythm changes with semester milestones and assessment rounds. When materials enter the knowledge base retrieval and recall function, the training plan serves as the field source for training objectives, courses, and time arrangements; the proposal report serves as the field source for topic selection, argumentation, and review comments; the mid-term assessment form serves as the field source for progress, outcomes, and review conclusions. All three types of materials contain names, quantities, dates, and signature fields. The field characteristic is that multiple tables cross-reference the same record, and versions increment with revision rounds. During drafting and handover, they must be compared item by item to ensure fields are complete, responsible parties are clear, and versions and dates are consistent before being handed to the next stage for receipt.
Configuration and implementation checks
This stage 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 upper-limit trimming). The material drafts and handover records that can be issued are completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Training plan | Fields include training objectives, course arrangements, supervisor signature, and date, and must be consistent with the name, quantity, and date in the proposal report | In the search test, test once each with synonymous questions, switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, or hybrid, and record the number of candidates and scores |
| Proposal report | Fields include topic selection, argumentation, review comments, signature, and receipt, and the version must be synchronized with the mid-term assessment form | Compare the ranking of the top few items before and after enabling usingReRank, and check whether the returned candidates include both semantic and full-text results |
| Mid-term assessment form | Fields include progress, outcomes, review conclusions, signature, and date, and must be consistent with the name, quantity, and date in the training plan | Adjust the similarity filter and limit upper bound, check the tokens of the cited text, and record the number of array items separately |
| Handover record | Fields include handover person, receiver, handover date, and receipt; if signature or receipt is missing, it must not enter the next stage | Draft one according to the template and complete one handover, see whether missing items are blocked, and check whether the version and date are consistent |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the training plan and the proposal report. Cause: During cross-referencing across multiple tables, fields were not compared item by item, and the drafting stage directly reused old values.
- Phenomenon: The mid-term assessment form has been updated, but the handover record still references the old version. Cause: The version was not synchronized, retrieval candidates were not filtered by the latest round, and the version number and date were not checked during handover.
- Phenomenon: The proposal report lacks a signature or receipt but is still treated as an issuable material. Cause: Field completeness was not verified item by item after retrieval and recall, and the handover stage did not block missing items.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle rerank on and off to observe the ranking of the top few items; switch searchMode, similarity, limit, and usingReRank, record the number of candidates and scores, check the tokens of the cited text, and record the number of array items separately.
Business test: draft one according to the template and complete one handover, and see whether missing items are blocked.
- In the knowledge base search test, switch retrieval modes, compare candidate results, and confirm that candidates come from different recall channels and have been merged.
- Compare the order of the top few items before and after enabling rerank, and check whether key snippets of the original text are still retained after similarity filtering and citation upper-limit trimming.