What this category's data looks like
For school safety hazard inspections and campus incident reporting, the core materials include safety inspection checklists, hazard rectification ledgers, and emergency incident reports. Safety inspection checklists are filled out by area and frequency, containing inspection items, dates, and inspector signatures; hazard rectification ledgers record hazard names, quantities, rectification deadlines, responsible persons, and acceptance signatures; emergency incident reports contain incident names, number of people involved, dates of occurrence, reporter signatures, and receipts. These materials are continuously updated with semester inspections, special inspections, and incident handling. The same hazard may appear repeatedly in both the checklist and the ledger, and the same incident may appear repeatedly in both the report and the receipt. When the materials enter the knowledge base retrieval and recall function, the safety inspection checklist provides inspection item and date fields, the hazard rectification ledger provides rectification status and signature fields, and the emergency incident report provides incident elements and receipt fields. Together, the three constitute searchable candidate fragment sources for subsequent nodes or manual generation of version ledgers and change records.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is performed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate fragments and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming). The version ledger and change records are then completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Safety inspection checklist | Inspection items, dates, and inspector signatures are complete; the same inspection item has a consistent name across different materials | In the search test, switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, or hybrid, and compare whether candidate fragments cover inspection items and dates; check the number of candidates and scores |
| Hazard rectification ledger | Hazard names, quantities, rectification deadlines, and acceptance signatures are consistent; the same hazard's quantity and date match across two materials | Search for the same hazard using synonymous questions, and observe whether candidates include both checklist and ledger sources; compare the order of the top few before and after enabling rerank, and record similarity and the number of candidates |
| Emergency incident report | Incident name, number of people involved, date of occurrence, reporter signature, and receipt are complete; when versions are not synchronized, the old version can be traced | Search for the incident name and date, and check whether candidate fragments include the receipt field; adjust limit to observe changes in the number of candidates, and record the tokens of the quoted text and the number of array items separately |
| Version ledger and change records | The current version is unique, old versions can be traced, and references are synchronized; after changing one piece of content, the version number and references are updated synchronously | After modifying one piece of content, re-retrieve and compare whether candidate fragments and scores change; use the usingReRank switch to rerank, and confirm that the order of the top few and the quoted content are synchronized |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same hazard's name and quantity do not match between the checklist and the ledger. Cause: The two materials are updated separately, without version comparison and field alignment.
- Symptom: The same incident's date does not match between the report and the receipt. Cause: Versions are not synchronized, and the old version is still retrieved and recalled.
- Symptom: The rectification ledger lacks an acceptance signature or the incident report lacks a receipt. Cause: Signature fields were not checked during material archiving, and retrieval candidates lack key paragraphs.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: Test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare candidate fragments and similarity scores, then toggle usingReRank to see the order of the top few, and record the number of candidates and the tokens of the quoted text.
Business test: Change one piece of content and see whether the version number and references are updated synchronously.
- In the knowledge base search test, switch
searchModeand compare candidate fragments and scores under semantic, full-text, and hybrid modes. - Adjust
limitandusingReRank, record the number of candidates and the tokens of the quoted text, and check whether the quoted content retains key fragments of the original text.