What this category's data looks like
When enterprise independent skilled talent evaluation enters the material drafting and responsibility handover stage, common materials include the enterprise evaluation filing form, evaluation specifications, and candidate roster. The filing form comes from enterprise application and competent department filing requirements, the evaluation specifications come from enterprise job standards and assessment plans, and the roster comes from registration and qualification review results. The update rhythm advances with batches: after registration closes, the roster is finalized; before assessment, the evaluation specifications are locked; after filing, the filing form is archived. Field characteristics are concentrated in names, quantities, dates, signatures, and version numbers. The same candidate name, trade, level, and number of people must be consistent across the two materials, and signatures and receipts cannot be missing. When the materials enter the multi-turn dialogue and prompt feature, the filing form serves as the basis for summary and issuance, the evaluation specifications serve as the standard caliber, and the roster serves as the personnel details. Together, the three support a draft material that can be issued and a handover record.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step 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 draft material that can be issued and the handover record are then completed by the model. Memory turns control how many previous dialogue turns can be referenced at most when answering. If the value is too small, the preceding text cannot be used; if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise evaluation filing form | Fields are complete, responsible persons are clear, version and date are consistent, and the names, quantities, and dates match those in the evaluation specifications and roster | Check the current values in the application settings, draft one according to the template, check whether the candidate names, trades, levels, and numbers of people in the filing form and roster are consistent, whether signatures and receipts are complete, and whether the version number and date are synchronized |
| Evaluation specifications | Assessment standards, level settings, dates, and signatures are complete, and the caliber is consistent with the filing form | Run a trial with two consecutive questions. In the first round, ask about the levels and assessment methods in the evaluation specifications. In the second round, use a referential follow-up to ask about the same record and see whether the answer carries forward the preceding text; check whether the specification version and the filing form version are synchronized |
| Candidate roster | Candidate names, ID numbers, trades, levels, and numbers of people are consistent with the filing form and evaluation specifications, and signatures and receipts are complete | Compare the usage records of two runs, check whether the numbers of people, dates, and signatures in the roster and filing form match, and whether missing items are blocked; check whether the references to chatId, messages, and variables in the handover record are complete |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The same candidate name or trade is written differently in the filing form and roster, and the quantities do not match. Cause: The two materials were drafted separately, were not checked against a unified field template, and the versions were not synchronized.
- Phenomenon: The evaluation specifications have been updated, but the filing form still references the old version, and dates and signatures are missing. Cause: The version number was not synchronized with the modification, and receipts and signatures were not checked during handover.
- Phenomenon: When a referential expression is used in the second question, the answer does not address the question, responses become slower, and consumption rises. Cause: The memory turns value does not match the preceding text range required by the question, bringing in irrelevant content.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Ask two consecutive follow-up questions. In the first round, ask about the number of candidates and trades in the filing form. In the second round, use a referential follow-up to ask about the same record and see whether the second question carries forward the reference from the first question; check whether chatId, messages, and variables are correctly referenced.
Business test: Draft one according to the template and complete one handover, and see whether missing items are blocked.
- Check the current memory turns value in the application settings, confirm that it matches the preceding text range required by the question, and compare the usage records of two runs.
- Draft a filing form, evaluation specifications, and roster according to the template, check whether names, quantities, dates, signatures, and versions are consistent, complete one handover, and record the missing-item blocking situation.