What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the student awards, grants, loans, and hardship determination scenario. Category materials include three types: family economic hardship determination forms, award and grant application forms, and loan receipts. Determination forms come from student submissions and class review, are updated by academic year, and contain household population, income, hardship level, review opinions, and signature fields; application forms come from student applications and department review, are updated by batch, and contain award name, amount, student ID, date, and signature; loan receipts come from banks or funding centers, are returned by disbursement cycle, and contain contract number, disbursement amount, arrival date, and receipt seal. When the three types of materials enter this feature, their roles differ: the determination form serves as the eligibility baseline, the application form serves as the current application record, and the loan receipt serves as the arrival credential. Field characteristics are concentrated in four categories: name, quantity, date, and signature. The same record often appears with different wording across materials, so the original input and return in the tool call result must be retained for subsequent verification.
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 input and return in the call record). The "progress table and statistical scope description" is then completed by a subsequent AI node or manual verification. The model decides whether to call based on the tool description, parameter description, and whether parameters are required. When there are no required parameters, it may fabricate parameter values on its own; when there are required parameters but no suitable value in the context, it may not call.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Family economic hardship determination form | Whether the name, date, and signature correspond to the application form and receipt; whether the determination level and review opinions are complete | Take one determination record, compare the name, student ID, and date of the same student in the application form and receipt, and check whether the signature field and review opinions are missing |
| Award and grant application form | Whether the award name, amount, and date are consistent with the determination form and receipt; whether the version is synchronized | Open the application form fields, verify the award name and amount wording, compare item by item with the determination form eligibility and receipt arrival record, and mark inconsistencies |
| Loan receipt | Whether the contract number, disbursement amount, arrival date, and seal are complete; whether it corresponds to the application form batch | Retrieve the receipt call record, verify the contract number and amount in the input and return, and check whether the seal and arrival date are written in |
| Tool call node connection | Whether the diamond interface is connected to the target tool, and whether the node status is available | On the canvas, verify the diamond connection and node status, run a trial with a question missing a required parameter, and observe whether it asks a follow-up question first |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name and student ID of the same student are written inconsistently in the determination form and application form. Cause: The two materials are filled in by different steps, and unified field mapping and version synchronization were not performed.
- Phenomenon: The disbursement amount in the loan receipt does not match the amount in the application form, and the dates are also misaligned. Cause: Receipts are returned by disbursement cycle, while application forms are submitted by batch, and the time scope was not aligned.
- Phenomenon: The determination form or application form lacks a signature, and the receipt lacks a seal. Cause: No completeness check for signatures and receipts was set during material circulation, and missing items were not intercepted.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: Run a trial with a question missing a required parameter, check the input and return in the call record, and confirm whether it asks a follow-up question or calls according to the description; at the same time, check toolChoice, functionCall, and the tool description fields to see whether the model decides to call according to the description and whether it fabricates values when there are no required parameters.
Business test: Use one week of records to verify the totals, and see whether the scope and exceptions are clearly stated; write the statistical scope description into the header, match the record count and statistical count item by item, and mark exception items separately.
- Open each tool node one by one, check the three items of tool description, parameter description, and whether required, and check whether the description can be understood when taken out separately and whether the parameters correspond to the business material fields.
- Run a trial with a question missing a signature or receipt, check the input and return in the call record, confirm that the model asks a follow-up question first rather than directly fabricating; then check the values of
toolChoiceandfunctionCallin the call record.