What this category's data looks like
Graduate training process management involves three core types of materials: training plans, proposal reports, and mid-term assessment forms. Fields include course names and credits, topic titles and dates, assessment conclusions and signature fields, and receipt numbers. Materials come from supervisor submissions, college reviews, and system exports. The update cadence advances according to semester milestones: proposal and mid-term each occur once, while training plans can be fine-tuned. When entering the conversation logs and auditing function, the training plan serves as the baseline version anchor, while the proposal report and mid-term assessment form serve as change-triggering materials. Together, the three form the comparison objects of the version ledger, used to verify whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent across two materials, and to confirm whether signatures and receipts are complete.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the conversation record interface (by application and session dimension), outputting a session message list and total record count, including role and citation information. The "version ledger and change records" are then completed manually or by an external system, for registration, export, and review.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Training plan | Course name, credits, and date must be consistent with the proposal report and mid-term assessment form | Pull records by application and session dimension, verify the chatId source, and compare the course names and dates in the training plan and proposal report |
| Proposal report | Topic title, date, and signature must be consistent with the mid-term assessment form | After paging through all records, sample one, verify the dataId and value fields, and confirm whether the signature field and receipt number are complete |
| Mid-term assessment form | Assessment conclusion, quantity, and date must be consistent with the training plan and proposal report | Pull two consecutive pages and compare the total record count total and offset, confirming that the quantity and date of the same record match across the two materials |
| Conversation record interface | The total record count total and response code of 200 can be verified, and role and citation information can be checked | Page through all records by total record count, sample one to verify role, citation information, and time, and confirm that the citation count equals the array length |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The course name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the training plan and the proposal report. Cause: Materials were submitted separately, without version comparison and field-level verification.
- Symptom: The mid-term assessment form has been updated, but the training plan remains the old version, and citations are not synchronized. Cause: The version number was not incremented with content changes, and the old version was not marked invalid.
- Symptom: The proposal report lacks a signature or the mid-term assessment form lacks a receipt. Cause: The review step did not fill in the signature field and receipt number, and material circulation was incomplete.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: Page through all records by total record count total, sample one to verify role, citation information, and time, and confirm that response code of 200 and the _id, dataId and value fields can be checked.
Business test: Change one piece of content, see whether the version number and citations are updated synchronously, and confirm that the old version is traceable and the current version is unique.
- Pull two consecutive pages by application and session dimension, compare the total record count total and offset, and confirm there are no omissions.
- Sample one record to verify role, citation information, and time, confirm that the citation count equals the array length, and record citation text tokens separately.