What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on progress records and statistical reconciliation for student status changes and graduation eligibility review. The materials come from three types of forms—leave-of-absence/resumption-of-study applications, major transfer applications, and graduation review checklists—as well as summary entries in weekly and monthly reports. The update cadence is weekly collection and monthly re-checking: newly added applications during the week first enter the progress table, and at month-end a total reconciliation is performed against the graduation review checklist. Field characteristics center on name, student ID, change type, effective date, signature or receipt status, and material version number. When materials enter the tool call node, leave-of-absence/resumption-of-study applications and major transfer applications play the role of detail sources, providing item-by-item records and dates; the graduation review checklist plays the role of reconciliation baseline, used to compare whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent across the two materials, and to check exceptions such as missing signatures or receipts and unsynchronized versions. The progress table and statistical scope description are completed next by subsequent AI nodes or manual reconciliation; the tool call node itself does not directly produce business documents.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the tool call node in the workflow (the model decides whether to call, and the node executes), outputting the tool call result (the inputs and returns in the call record). The "progress table and statistical scope description" is completed next by subsequent AI nodes or manual reconciliation. Based on the tool description, parameter descriptions, and whether parameters are required, the model determines whether to call the tool this time; when there are no required parameters, the model may fabricate parameter values on its own, and when there are required parameters but no suitable values in the context, it may not call.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Leave-of-absence/resumption-of-study application | Whether fields, dates, and signatures correspond item by item with the graduation review checklist | Open the tool node to introduce the fields, check the two items of parameter description and whether required, then run a trial with a question missing the effective date to see whether it asks a follow-up first |
| Major transfer application | Whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record match across the two materials | On the canvas, check the diamond interface connections and node status, and confirm that toolChoice and functionCall are traceable in the call record |
| Graduation review checklist | Whether the version is synchronized and whether signatures or receipts are complete | Use one week's records to reconcile the total, compare details and the checklist item by item, and write exceptions into the header of the scope description table |
| Progress table and statistical scope description | Whether the number of records and the statistical count match, and whether the scope is written into the header | Check the inputs and returns in the call record, and confirm that the total scope and exception items are all annotated |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name or quantity of the same record does not match between the leave-of-absence/resumption-of-study application and the graduation review checklist. Cause: the two materials are maintained separately, without item-by-item comparison by the same student ID and effective date.
- Symptom: the version of the major transfer application is not synchronized, and the old date remains in the progress table. Cause: after the material is updated, the tool is not called again, and the return in the call record is still the old value.
- Symptom: the graduation review checklist is missing a signature or receipt, but the total has already included it. Cause: the statistical scope does not write the signature status into the header, and exception items are directly summed.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: run a trial with a question missing a required parameter, check the inputs and returns in the call record, and confirm whether it asks a follow-up or calls according to the description; at the same time, check whether toolChoice and functionCall appear in the call record.
Business test: use one week's records to reconcile the total, and see whether the scope and exceptions are clearly written; the number of citations is the array length, quoteMaxToken is the citation content budget, the two are not compared for equality, and the tokens of the cited text are checked separately.
- Open the parameter configurations one by one, check the two items of description and whether required, and confirm that the required fields correspond to fields that actually exist in the business materials.
- Run a trial with a question missing that field to see whether it asks a follow-up first rather than fabricating directly; and check whether the results of multiple tools connected in series interfere with each other.