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. The training plan is jointly formulated by the supervisor and the graduate student, containing course credits, research direction, and time arrangements; the proposal report records the basis for topic selection, literature review, and work plan, and requires the supervisor's signature and review comments; the mid-term assessment form summarizes stage results, credit completion status, and next-step arrangements, and requires the assessment panel's signature and receipt. The three types of materials are updated by semester or academic year, and fields cover name, student ID, course name, credits, date, signature, and receipt. When the materials enter the knowledge base retrieval and recall function, the training plan serves as the basis for the training framework, the proposal report serves as evidence of topic selection and progress, and the mid-term assessment form serves as proof of stage assessment; each participates in candidate recall as an independent fragment, for subsequent nodes or manual generation of version ledgers and change records.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate fragments and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, re-rank, filter, and upper-limit trimming). The version ledger and change records are then completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Training plan | Fields, dates, and signatures must be consistent with the proposal report and mid-term assessment form | In the search test, switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, or hybrid, compare candidate fragments and similarity scores, and check whether course names, credits, and dates match up |
| Proposal report | The name, quantity, and date of the same record in the two materials must be consistent, and signatures and receipts must be complete | Retrieve once each with synonymous questions, observe the ranking of the top few results before and after enabling usingReRank, and check whether the supervisor's signature and review comments are missing |
| Mid-term assessment form | If versions are not synchronized, it must be traceable; the current version must be unique and references must be synchronized | Check the number of returned candidates and scores, confirm that key fragments of assessment conclusions and signature receipts are still retained after similarity filtering, and record the cited text tokens and array count |
| Version ledger and change records | The current version is unique, old versions are traceable, and references are synchronized | After changing one piece of content, retrieve again, compare the number of candidates and cited content before and after limit trimming, and check whether the version number and references are updated synchronously |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same course name is written differently in the training plan and the mid-term assessment form, and the credit counts do not match. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, without field alignment and version association.
- Symptom: The proposal report has been updated, but knowledge base recall still returns the old version content. Cause: The version was not synchronized, the old fragment was not marked invalid, and retrieval candidates were not filtered by the current version.
- Symptom: The mid-term assessment form lacks the assessment panel's signature or receipt, but is still recalled as valid proof. Cause: Material completeness was not verified before ingestion, and retrieval returns candidates only by similarity.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare candidate fragments and similarity scores, then toggle re-ranking to observe the ranking of the top few results; switch searchMode and usingReRank, record the number of candidates and scores, and check the cited text tokens and array count after similarity filtering and limit trimming.
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
searchMode, retrieve the same question in semantic, full-text, and hybrid modes respectively, record the number of candidates and similarity scores, and check whether the names, quantities, and dates of the training plan, proposal report, and mid-term assessment form are consistent. - Enable and disable
usingReRank, compare the ranking of the top few candidates; adjustsimilarityandlimit, view the cited text tokens and array count, and confirm that signature and receipt fragments are not trimmed and lost.