What this category's data looks like
Undergraduate program establishment and dynamic adjustment involves three types of materials: program establishment application forms, talent cultivation plans, and expert argumentation opinions. Application forms come from college submissions and contain fields such as program name, code, length of study, degree-granting category, and signature fields; cultivation plans come from teaching and research offices and contain the curriculum system, credits and class hours, practical components, and the signature of the person in charge; argumentation opinions come from external experts and contain the argumentation date, list of experts, conclusion, and signed receipt. Materials are updated monthly or by batch, and the name, quantity, and date of the same program in the application form and cultivation plan must be aligned item by item. When entering this function, the application form provides the reporting entity and field baseline, the cultivation plan provides the curriculum and credit standards, and the argumentation opinions provide the conclusion and signature evidence; together, the three constitute the input for progress records and statistical verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the tool call node in the workflow (the model decides whether to call it, and the node executes it), outputting the tool call result (the input parameters and return in the call record). The "progress table and statistical standards explanation" is then completed by subsequent AI nodes or manual verification. Based on the tool introduction, parameter introduction, and whether parameters are required, the model determines whether to call the tool this time.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program establishment application form | Whether the fields, dates, and signatures align with the cultivation plan and argumentation opinions, and whether names and quantities can correspond item by item | Open the tool node introduction fields, check the parameter introduction and whether required, and test with a question missing a signature field to see whether it asks a follow-up question first |
| Talent cultivation plan | Whether course names, credits and class hours, and dates are consistent with the application form standards, and whether versions are synchronized | Open each parameter configuration one by one, check the introduction and whether required, and check whether the returned result contains values that do not exist in the materials |
| Expert argumentation opinions | Whether the expert list, argumentation date, conclusion, and signed receipt are complete, and whether the dates in the two materials fail to match | On the canvas, check the diamond connectors and node status, and confirm the input parameters and return in the call records of toolChoice, functionCall, and toolChoice |
| Progress records and statistical standards | Whether the number of records matches the statistical count, whether the standards are written in the header, and whether exceptions are clearly stated | Use one week of records to verify the total, check the tokens and array length of the referenced text, and record them separately |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name and quantity of the same program do not match between the application form and the cultivation plan. Cause: the two material versions are not synchronized, the update cadence differs, and the field baseline is not unified.
- Symptom: the argumentation opinions lack a signature or receipt, and the date is inconsistent with the application form. Cause: the material circulation step leaves no trace, and the signature page is not updated with the version.
- Symptom: the model does not call the tool and directly gives an answer. Cause: the tool introduction does not state when it should be used, and the required parameters do not correspond to the material fields.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this function: test with a question missing a required parameter, check the input parameters and return in the call record, confirm whether it asks a follow-up question or calls according to the introduction, and check the call records of toolChoice and functionCall.
Business test: use one week of records to verify the total, see whether the standards and exceptions are clearly stated, and whether the number of records matches the statistical count.
- Open the tool node introduction fields, check whether this description can be understood when taken out on its own, and check the parameter introduction and whether required.
- On the canvas, check the diamond connectors and node status, and test with a question missing a field to see whether it asks a follow-up question first instead of directly fabricating.