What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on the category of student disciplinary action and appeal handling. The materials include three types: disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements. Disciplinary fact materials record the time, place, persons involved, item names, and quantities of the conduct, and usually include the investigator's signature and the party's confirmation; disciplinary decision documents state the type of disciplinary action, the basis clauses, the effective date, and the delivery receipt; appeal statements contain the appeal request, factual grounds, submission date, and the appellant's signature. When these three types of materials enter the knowledge base retrieval node, each plays a different role: disciplinary fact materials and disciplinary decision documents serve as the original basis for the facts and the decision, while appeal statements serve as the initiating proof for subsequent relief procedures. In terms of update rhythm, disciplinary decision documents may change due to review or appeal results, disciplinary fact materials may be revised due to supplementary investigation, and appeal statements may be resubmitted due to corrected materials. Field characteristics are concentrated in four items: name, quantity, date, and signature. The same record often has mismatches in name, quantity, and date across two materials, unsynchronized versions, and missing signatures or receipts.
Configuration and implementation checks
The citation output of the knowledge base retrieval node outputs only an array of cited content, each item containing the original text fragment and source identifier, and the length may be 0. The version ledger and change records must be handled subsequently by AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work. This step is executed by the citation output of the knowledge base retrieval node, which outputs an array of cited content, each item containing the original text fragment and source identifier, and the length may be 0.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Whether the name, quantity, date, and signature are consistent with the disciplinary decision document | Compare item names, quantities, conduct dates, and investigator signatures in the two materials one by one, and record inconsistent items |
| Disciplinary decision document | Whether the type of disciplinary action, basis clauses, effective date, and delivery receipt are complete | Check the clause numbers, effective date, and receipt signature in the decision document to confirm there are no missing items |
| Appeal statement | Whether the appeal request, factual grounds, submission date, and appellant signature are complete | Check whether the dates and types of disciplinary action in the appeal statement and the disciplinary decision document correspond, and confirm the signature and receipt |
| Citation content output | The number of citation items is consistent with the matched materials; being empty is also normal | Run a test with a question that has no matching materials, and see whether the output is empty while the chain continues; the number of citation items is the array length, and quoteMaxToken is the citation content budget, so the two are not compared for equality |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the disciplinary fact materials and the disciplinary decision document. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, and no field-level comparison or version synchronization was performed.
- Phenomenon: The disciplinary decision document has been updated, but the knowledge base still returns the old version citation. Cause: The version was not synchronized, the old version was not marked invalid, and the citation does not point to the current version.
- Phenomenon: The appeal statement lacks the appellant's signature or delivery receipt. Cause: The material circulation step did not verify the signature and receipt fields, resulting in incomplete citation fragments.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: ask a question with original-text support, and check whether the citation array and footnote can point back to the original text; then ask a question with no matching materials, and confirm that the array is empty while the chain runs through. Turn on the conversation citation footnote, compare against the source document, and check that the number of citation items in responseData (non-streaming module results returned with detailed output enabled) is consistent with the matched materials, and that quoteList can point back to the original text paragraph.
Business test: change one piece of content and see whether the version number and citation are updated synchronously.
- In the node, check the selected knowledge base collections and their vector models, and confirm that the associated knowledge bases use the same vector model.
- Open the search parameter panel and check each item, confirming that the values are consistent with those set in the knowledge base retrieval section.