What this category's data looks like
When college admissions physical examination organizations handle physical examinations, re-examinations, and restricted major notifications, they produce three core types of materials: physical examination forms, re-examination applications, and restricted major notifications, accompanied by signature fields, receipt fields, date fields, and restricted conclusion fields. When these materials enter the knowledge base retrieval node, each plays a different role: the physical examination form provides fields, dates, and signature baselines; the re-examination application provides the reason for re-examination and the acceptance receipt; the restricted major notification provides the restricted conclusion and the notification receipt. The name, quantity, and date of the same record in two materials can easily fail to match. When versions are not synchronized, the old version is still cited. Missing signatures or receipts prevent the ledger from closing the loop. Data version and change maintenance require establishing a version ledger and change records by batch to ensure the current version is unique, old versions are traceable, and citations are synchronized. The update rhythm should advance according to admissions batches and physical examination conclusion change nodes. After each change to one piece of content, synchronize and verify the version number and citation source, then update the knowledge base or external documents.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the citation output of the knowledge base retrieval node, which outputs an array of cited content, each item containing an original text fragment and a source identifier, and the length can be 0. The "version ledger and change records" are completed subsequently by AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work, and are used to compare fields, write ledgers, and generate reports.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Physical examination form | Whether the fields, dates, and signatures are consistent with the current version, and whether the restricted conclusion corresponds to the notification materials | Check the fields, dates, signature fields, and receipt fields, and confirm that the current version is unique and old versions are traceable |
| Re-examination application | Whether the reason for re-examination, acceptance date, and signature receipt match the records in the physical examination form | Compare names, quantities, dates, and signatures, and check whether the citation source is synchronized and updated |
| Restricted major notification | Whether the restricted conclusion, notification date, and receipt signature are consistent with the conclusion in the physical examination form | Check the notification fields and receipt, and confirm that the cited fragment can point back to the original paragraph |
| Citation content output | The number of returned 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 pipeline continues; check quoteMaxToken and responseData (non-streaming module results returned with detailed output enabled), quoteList |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same record in the physical examination form and the re-examination application do not match. Cause: The two materials are maintained separately, and fields and dates are not compared according to the same batch.
- Phenomenon: Versions are not synchronized, the old physical examination form is still cited, and the restricted major notification continues to use the old conclusion. Cause: After changes, the version ledger and citation source were not updated.
- Phenomenon: Signatures or receipts are missing, the ledger cannot close the loop, and cited fragments do not match the original text. Cause: The signature page was not collected during the material circulation process, and citations do not point back to the original paragraph.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Ask a question with original text support, and check whether the citation array and superscripts can point back to the original text; then ask a question with no matching materials, and confirm that the array is empty while the pipeline runs through. The number of citations is the array length, and quoteMaxToken is the citation content budget; the two are not compared for equality. When citation limits are involved, check the tokens of the cited text, and record the array item count separately.
Business test: Change one piece of content and see whether the version number and citations are synchronized and updated.
- Open the search parameter panel and check item by item, confirm that the associated knowledge base uses the same vector model, and check the cited fragments in
quoteListwithinresponseData. - Open the citation superscripts in the conversation, compare them with the source documents, confirm that each citation can point back to the original paragraph, and then update the knowledge base or external documents.