What this category's data looks like
This page addresses undergraduate program setup and dynamic adjustment. Materials include program setup application forms, talent cultivation plans, and expert review opinions. The source is formal texts produced during on-campus application and review processes, and the update cadence advances with application batches, cultivation plan revisions, and review meeting milestones. Field characteristics center on names, quantities, dates, and signatures: program name, code, enrollment scale, course credits, review date, expert signature, and receipt. When the three types of materials enter this feature, their roles differ: the program setup application form serves as the main record carrying the program's basic fields; the talent cultivation plan serves as the supporting text carrying course and credit fields; the expert review opinions serve as corroborating material carrying review conclusions and signature fields. The three must maintain the same program name, the same quantity basis, and the same date chain. Any field change must leave a trace in the version ledger and change records, old versions must be traceable, and references must be synchronized to the knowledge base or external documents.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the trigger configuration and tool nodes (scheduling capability is not in the tool introduction), outputting trigger records and execution results. The trigger configuration determines whether the corresponding tool node is reached at the scheduled time, and the tool introduction clearly states when execution should occur. The version ledger and change records are completed by business processing according to the records or by supplementary runs. When the model does not need to summarize again, a tool call termination node can be attached at the end of the tool to end this call.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup application form | Whether the name, quantity, date, and signature are consistent with the talent cultivation plan and expert review opinions | Check the introduction fields and process connections to see whether the trigger has reached the corresponding tool node; compare the program name, enrollment quantity, review date, signature, and receipt; check the trigger records and execution time |
| Talent cultivation plan | Whether fields such as course credits and cultivation objectives match the program setup application form and expert review opinions | Check the introduction fields; compare course names, credit quantities, and revision dates; check the trigger records and execution time to confirm execution at the scheduled time and only once |
| Expert review opinions | Whether the review conclusions, expert signatures, and review dates are synchronized with the program setup application form and talent cultivation plan | Check the introduction fields; compare expert names, review dates, signatures, and receipts; check where the termination node is attached to confirm that it is attached at the end of the tool when no summary is needed |
| Version ledger and change records | The current version is unique, old versions are traceable, and references are synchronized | Change one piece of content and see whether the version number and references are updated synchronously; check the trigger records and execution time to confirm execution at the scheduled time and only once |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same program do not match across two materials. Cause: The program setup application form and the talent cultivation plan each maintain their own fields and are not compared against the same record.
- Symptom: An old version of the talent cultivation plan is still referenced, and the current version is not unique. Cause: The version was not synchronized, the knowledge base or external documents were not updated after the change, and references were not linked to the version number.
- Symptom: The expert review opinions lack a signature or receipt, and the review date is inconsistent with the application form. Cause: The signature field was not checked when the materials were submitted, and the receipt was not archived with the review record.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: check the trigger records and execution time to confirm execution at the scheduled time and only once; check the introduction fields, process connections, and where the termination node is attached.
Business test: change one piece of content and see whether the version number and references are updated synchronously; compare the names, quantities, dates, and signatures of the program setup application form, talent cultivation plan, and expert review opinions.
- Check the name, quantity, date, and signature fields of the program setup application form, talent cultivation plan, and expert review opinions one by one; if any inconsistency is found, record it in the change records and perform a supplementary run.
- Check that the trigger has reached the corresponding tool node, check the introduction fields and where the termination node is attached, and confirm that it is attached at the end of the tool when no summary is needed.