What this category's data looks like
Enterprise independent skilled talent evaluation filing and implementation materials usually include three categories: enterprise evaluation filing forms, evaluation specifications, and candidate rosters. Sources are applicant unit submission, evaluation agency review, and competent department filing receipts. The update cadence follows batch application, assessment implementation, and result confirmation. Fields involve unit name, occupation (trade) name, level, candidate name, ID document number, application date, assessment date, signature, and seal. When entering the parsing and chunking stage, the filing form plays the role of verifying qualifications and filing information, the evaluation specification plays the role of assessment standards and process basis, and the roster plays the role of personnel list and batch correspondence. For the same record across the three material types, the name, quantity, and date must remain consistent in the version ledger and change records, old versions must remain traceable, and references must be synchronized to the knowledge base or external documents.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by parsing and training tasks (server-side tasks), outputting data rows and index status (parsed, indexing, indexed). The version ledger and change records are then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise evaluation filing form | In the filing form, the unit name, occupation (trade) name, and level are consistent with the corresponding records in the evaluation specification and roster in name, quantity, and date, and signatures and receipts are complete | Check the same-named fields in the filing form against the evaluation specification and roster respectively, confirm there are no missing items in dates and signature receipts, and check that data row status is consistent with the interface display |
| Evaluation specification | The assessment process and level settings in the specification are synchronized with the references in the filing form and roster, and the version number uniquely corresponds to the current version | Check the specification version number and reference source, confirm old versions are traceable and the current version is unique, and check whether chunking under the chunkSize and chunkSplitter settings covers signature and date fields |
| Candidate roster | In the roster, the candidate name, ID document number, and application date match the same record in the filing form and evaluation specification in name, quantity, and date, and missing signature or receipt items are marked | Compare the roster with the filing form and specification records one by one, check that data row status is one of parsed, indexing, or indexed, and confirm that data pending indexing does not participate in recall |
| Data rows and index status | Data row status is consistent with the interface display, file records and data rows are distinguished by their own identities, and the rebuild scope covers only data that has completed indexing | Open data rows to check status, check file records and data rows separately, view the data rows covered by the rebuild task, and confirm that trainingType corresponds to the processing mode |
Three common errors
- Symptom: newly uploaded materials cannot be found. Cause: successful parsing does not mean retrieval will necessarily hit; data pending indexing is naturally isolated at the retrieval layer and is not recalled, so you need to check whether index status has completed.
- Symptom: the name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match across two materials. Cause: versions are not synchronized or references are not updated, and old and current versions coexist, causing inconsistency between the ledger and the roster.
- Symptom: empty data rows remain after training fails. Cause: interrupted training leaves orphan data, missing signature or receipt items are not marked, and editing and deletion must be handled according to security interception rules.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: upload one material and observe the data row status transitions and the coverage scope of the rebuild task. Data rows should go through parsed to indexing to indexed, data pending indexing does not participate in recall; changing models rebuilds only data that has completed indexing, and you check the settings corresponding to chunkSize, chunkSplitter, and trainingType and the data rows covered by the rebuild task.
Business test: change one piece of content and see whether the version number and references are updated synchronously.
- Open data rows to check status, confirm it is one of parsed, indexing, or indexed and consistent with the interface display, and check file record and data row identifiers separately.
- View the data rows covered by the rebuild task, confirm it covers only data that has completed indexing, and that initial training covers data pending indexing and data being indexed, and the two are not interchanged.