What this category's data looks like
Vocational college skills competition organization involves three types of materials: competition regulations, registration forms, and training plans. The regulations state the event name, group, time and location, and signature fields; the registration form records contestant names, ID numbers, competition events, and supervising instructors; the training plan lists stages, class hours, venues, and responsible persons. The materials come from two lines, academic affairs and competition affairs, and the update rhythm advances with registration deadlines, pre-competition training, and post-competition archiving. When entering the multi-turn dialogue and prompts feature, the regulations serve as the constraint draft, the registration form serves as the source of personnel and event fields, and the training plan serves as the source of process and responsibility fields. Together, the three support issuable material drafts and handover records; only when the fields are complete, the responsible persons are clear, and the version and date are consistent can they be handed to the next stage for sign-off.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, and the output references the historical message range and answer constraints. The model then completes the issuable material drafts and handover records. The memory turns control how many previous dialogue turns can be referenced at most when answering; a smaller value fails to use the preceding context, while a larger value brings in irrelevant content and increases consumption.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Competition regulations | Whether the event name, group, date, and signature fields are consistent with the registration form | Check the current value in the application settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions, and compare whether the references in the preceding and following turns in messages are consistent |
| Registration form | Whether contestant names, competition events, and the number of supervising instructors match across the two materials | Draft one according to the template and complete one handover, then check whether fields are missing in the session corresponding to chatId |
| Training plan | Whether the stage, class hours, venue, responsible person, and version date are synchronized | Compare the usage records of two runs, and check whether the date and version brought in by variables are consistent |
| Handover record | Whether the sign-off person, receipt, version, and date are complete | Complete one handover and see whether missing items are blocked |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: the same contestant name is written differently in the registration form and the training plan. Cause: the two materials were drafted separately, without using the regulations as the field baseline for unified checking.
- Phenomenon: the regulations date has been changed, but the registration form still uses the old version. Cause: the version was not synchronized, and the version and date were not checked for consistency during handover.
- Phenomenon: the handover record lacks the sign-off person and receipt. Cause: the materials were circulated directly after drafting, without checking the signature fields and receipt items according to the template.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: ask two consecutive follow-up questions, see whether the second question inherits the reference from the first question, and check whether the historical message range in messages and chatId matches.
Business test: draft one according to the template and complete one handover, and see whether missing items are blocked.
- Check the current value of memory turns in the application settings, and match it with the preceding context range required by the question.
- Run a trial with two consecutive questions, and compare the usage records of the two runs.