What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the signing stage of research project task statements. Materials include the project task statement, the topic task breakdown table, and the budget statement. The project task statement comes from the project approval reply and the application form, and its update cadence advances with topic justification and budget approval; the topic task breakdown table is split level by level by subtopic, and its update cadence is synchronized with the task statement; the budget statement is prepared based on the task breakdown table, and its update cadence is affected by adjustments to funding categories. When these three types of materials enter the multi-turn dialogue and prompt feature, each plays a different role: the project task statement serves as the main record, the topic task breakdown table serves as the basis for mapping tasks to responsible persons, and the budget statement serves as the basis for matching funding to categories. Field characteristics center on project name, topic name, undertaking unit, responsible person, task start and end dates, funding category, amount, signature, and receipt. For the same record, the name, quantity, and dates in the task statement and the breakdown table must be aligned item by item, versions and dates must be consistent, and signatures or receipts must not be missing.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, which output the reference range of historical messages and the answer constraints. The model then completes the draftable materials and handover records. Memory turns control how many previous dialogue turns can be referenced at most when answering. If the value is too small, prior context cannot be used; if too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Project task statement | Whether the project name, topic name, undertaking unit, responsible person, task start and end dates, signature, and receipt are complete and consistent with the approval | Check the memory turns value in the application settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions, and check whether the second turn carries forward the reference from the first turn; compare the messages and variables records under chatId |
| Topic task breakdown table | Whether the topic name, number of subtopics, responsible person, and task start and end dates are aligned item by item with the project task statement | Draft one according to the template and complete one handover to see whether missing items are blocked; check whether the name, quantity, and dates of the same record are consistent in the task statement and the breakdown table |
| Budget statement | Whether the funding category, amount, start and end dates, signature, and receipt are consistent with the task breakdown table, and whether the version is synchronized | Compare the usage records of two runs to confirm that usage changes accordingly after adjusting the turns; check whether the dates and versions in the budget statement and the task statement are consistent |
| Handover record | Whether the responsible person, handover date, receipt, and version are clear, and whether missing items are blocked | Run a trial with two consecutive questions to confirm that the second question carries forward the reference from the first question; check whether the fields in the handover record are complete |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and dates of the same record do not match between the project task statement and the topic task breakdown table. Cause: The two were drafted separately and were not checked item by item against the same fields.
- Symptom: The versions of the budget statement and the task statement are not synchronized, and signatures or receipts are missing. Cause: After a version update, it was not synchronized to the other material, and the receipt was not verified during the handover step.
- Symptom: When the second question uses a reference, the answer does not address the question, responses become slower, and consumption rises. Cause: The memory turns value does not match the prior context range required by the question, bringing in irrelevant content.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: Ask two consecutive follow-up questions and see whether the second question carries forward the reference from the first question; check the historical message range and answer constraints corresponding to the three identifiers chatId, messages, and variables.
Business test: Draft one according to the template and complete one handover to see whether missing items are blocked.
- Check the current memory turns value in the application settings and match it with the prior context range required by the question.
- Compare the usage records of two runs to confirm that usage changes accordingly after adjusting the turns.