What this category's data looks like
In the material drafting and responsibility handover stage of social evaluation of vocational skill level certification, three types of materials are often involved: the evaluation implementation plan, the candidate registration form, and the assessor dispatch form. The evaluation implementation plan carries the certification occupation, level, assessment method, and schedule; the candidate registration form carries candidate identity, application conditions, and contact information; the assessor dispatch form carries assessor qualifications, dispatched sessions, and signature confirmation. Material sources are mostly the evaluation agency's internal business systems or offline templates, and the update rhythm advances with the batch certification plan, with field characteristics concentrated in names, quantities, dates, and signature fields. When entering model access and configuration, the evaluation implementation plan is used to retrieve certification rules and template paragraphs, the candidate registration form is used to verify application conditions and batch correspondence, and the assessor dispatch form is used to compare dispatch records with signed receipts. The three types of materials play different roles in dialogue and retrieval, but all must ensure complete fields, clear responsible persons, and consistent versions and dates before they can be handed over to the next stage for sign-off.
Configuration and implementation checks
This stage is executed by the server-side model channel configuration, outputting model binding relationships and channel responses. The signable material drafts and handover records are completed by subsequent AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work. Models are divided into five categories: language, indexing, reranking, speech synthesis, and speech recognition, and different stages bind different model types.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation implementation plan | Whether it is consistent with the candidate registration form and the assessor dispatch form in certification occupation, level, and batch date, and whether the signature field is complete | Compare the names, quantities, dates, and signatures of the three materials to verify whether the versions are synchronized; check the indexing model type label in the model configuration to confirm that the retrieval stage is bound correctly, and check the values of maxContext and maxTokens |
| Candidate registration form | Whether it matches the evaluation implementation plan in application conditions, batch name, and date, and whether the receipt is retained | Compare the fields of the registration form and the implementation plan item by item, and record inconsistencies; check the channel configuration and key source to confirm that the service being called is consistent, and check the configuration of toolChoice |
| Assessor dispatch form | Whether it is consistent with the evaluation implementation plan in assessor name, number of sessions, and dispatch date, and whether signatures or receipts are missing | Compare the assessor information in the dispatch form and the implementation plan, and check the signature field; compare the model name returned by the channel to verify that the model identifier is consistent with the name listed in the documentation |
| Model binding relationships | Whether the five model categories—language, indexing, reranking, speech synthesis, and speech recognition—correspond to the stages in which they are to be used | Check the type labels in the model configuration to confirm that dialogue and retrieval are each bound to the corresponding model type |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same candidate's name, quantity, or date does not match between the registration form and the implementation plan, and the handover is returned. Cause: The two materials were drafted separately, without field-level comparison and version synchronization.
- Symptom: The assessor dispatch form lacks a signature or receipt, and the next stage cannot sign off. Cause: The handover record was not circulated in sync with the materials, and the signature field was not checked for completeness during drafting.
- Symptom: Retrieval reports an indexing model-related error, or the answer style changes abruptly after switching models. Cause: The indexing model binding does not match the retrieval stage, and the model identifier is inconsistent with the model name returned by the channel.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: run one dialogue and one retrieval, check whether the model identifier in the response is consistent with the name listed in the documentation, and confirm that the indexing model type corresponds to the retrieval stage; if a citation limit is involved, check the tokens of the cited text, record the number of array items separately, quoteMaxToken is the citation content budget, and the two are not compared for equality.
Business test: draft one according to the template and complete one handover, and see whether missing items are blocked.
- Check the type labels in the model configuration to confirm that the five model categories—language, indexing, reranking, speech synthesis, and speech recognition—correspond to the stages in which they are to be used.
- Verify the model identifier against the model name returned by the channel, and check whether the channel configuration and key source are consistent with the service being called.