What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on material drafting and responsibility handover in the scenario of degree conferral and certificate information reporting, involving three core types of materials: the degree application form, the thesis review form, and the defense resolution. The degree application form is provided with basic information by the applicant and the supervisor, the thesis review form is filled in with review opinions and conclusions by review experts, and the defense resolution records the voting results and key points of the resolution by the defense committee. Before submission, these materials need to enter the drafting and handover process. Their field characteristics include: applicant name, student ID, thesis title, review expert name, review conclusion, defense date, number of votes, signature field, version number, and date stamp. Material sources are scattered, and the update rhythm is driven by the review and defense progress. It is common for the same record to have inconsistent names, quantities, or dates across different materials, for versions not to be synchronized, or for signatures and receipts to be missing. In the drafting stage, the fields of the three types of materials need to be aligned; in the handover stage, responsible persons need to be clarified and receipt records retained, ensuring that the next stage can continue processing based on the complete draft and handover records.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by application settings (such as the response limit), which determine the length of a single answer and the range of context that can be accommodated. "Material drafts and handover records that can be issued" are then completed by the model.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Degree application form | Fields are complete: applicant name, student ID, thesis title, supervisor signature, date and version number are consistent | Check whether all fields in the application form are filled in completely, whether the signature field corresponds to the date stamp, and whether the version number is synchronized with the thesis review form and defense resolution |
| Thesis review form | Review expert name, review conclusion, review date, and signature are complete, and are consistent with the records in the application form | Check whether the thesis title and applicant name in the review form are consistent with the application form, whether the review conclusion is clear, and whether the signature and receipt are retained |
| Defense resolution | Defense date, number of votes, key points of the resolution, chair signature, and version number are complete, and do not conflict with the review form conclusion | Check whether the thesis title, applicant name, and defense date in the defense resolution are consistent with the application form and review form, and whether the number of votes matches the actual number of people |
| Handover record | Responsible person is clear, version and date are consistent, and the receipt field is complete | Confirm whether the drafter, reviewer, and recipient in the handover record are clear, whether the version number and date are consistent with the material draft, and whether missing items are intercepted |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The same applicant's name is written differently in the degree application form and the thesis review form, causing the submission to be returned. Cause: During drafting, verification was not performed against a unified field source; the two places were entered separately and no consistency check was performed.
- Phenomenon: The thesis review form version has been updated, but the defense resolution still cites the old review conclusion, and the date and conclusion do not match. Cause: The version was not synchronized, the version number and date stamp were not checked during handover, and a version comparison step was missing.
- Phenomenon: The defense resolution lacks the signature of the defense committee chair or the receipt, and the material cannot enter the next stage. Cause: The handover record did not specify the person responsible for signing, the receipt field was empty, and the missing item was not intercepted.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: Ask a question that requires a long answer and see whether the ending is complete; check whether the position of the response limit slider matches the answer length required by the page, confirm the truncation behavior and runtime consumption, and pay attention to the roles of maxResponse, maxContext, and quoteMaxToken in the output.
Business test: Draft one according to the template and complete one handover to see whether missing items are intercepted.
- In the application settings, check the response limit switch and slider position, confirm that they match the answer length required by the page, and compare the usage changes between two runs.
- Ask a question that requires a long answer, check whether the ending of the answer is complete, and record the truncation behavior and whether the length is stable for similar questions.