What this category's data looks like
Materials in the student disciplinary actions and appeal handling category include three types: disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements. Disciplinary fact materials are submitted by counselors or homeroom teachers, recording the time, place, behavioral description, and evidence list of the violation; disciplinary decision documents are issued by the student affairs department, stating the disciplinary level, legal provisions relied upon, effective date, and signatures/seals; appeal statements are submitted by the student personally or by a representative, containing the appeal request, factual grounds, evidence list, and submission date. The three types of materials are updated by semester or event batch, and their field characteristics are many dates and many signature fields, and the names and quantities of the same event in different materials must be consistent. When materials enter the knowledge base retrieval and recall function, disciplinary fact materials serve as candidates for factual sources, disciplinary decision documents serve as candidates for decision basis, and appeal statements serve as candidates for objection and review clues; each participates in recall in fragment form and does not directly generate statistical tables or business documents.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate fragments and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and upper-limit trimming). The progress table and statistical scope description are then completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Names, quantities, dates, and signatures must match the disciplinary decision documents and appeal statements | In the search test, switch searchMode, check whether candidate fragments cover the names, quantities, and dates of the same event, and check whether signature fields and receipts are complete |
| Disciplinary decision documents | Disciplinary level, legal provisions relied upon, effective date, and signatures/seals must be consistent with the fact materials | Test once each with synonymous questions, compare the number of candidates and scores, check the ranking of the top few items before and after enabling usingReRank, and verify the date and signature/seal fragments |
| Appeal statements | Appeal request, factual grounds, evidence list, and submission date must correspond to the decision documents | Adjust similarity and limit to observe candidate trimming, verify the tokens of the cited text, record the number of array items separately, and check whether versions are synchronized and signatures are missing |
| Progress table and statistical scope description | Record counts and statistical counts must match, and the scope must be written in the header | Use one week of records to verify the totals, check whether the scope and exceptions are clearly stated, and confirm that candidate fragments and cited content are not statistical tables or authorization results |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The names, quantities, and dates of the same record do not match between the disciplinary fact materials and the disciplinary decision documents. Cause: The two materials are entered separately and no field-level association verification is performed.
- Phenomenon: The appeal statement versions are not synchronized, and the old and new versions are recalled at the same time. Cause: Inconsistent update cadence and lack of version markers and replacement rules.
- Phenomenon: The disciplinary decision documents lack signatures or the appeal statements lack receipts. Cause: When materials are archived, the signature fields and receipt fields are not validated, and retrieval still returns candidate fragments.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: Test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle rerank on and off to observe the ranking of the top few items.
Business test: Use one week of records to verify the totals, and check whether the scope and exceptions are clearly stated.
- In the search test, switch
searchMode, compare the number of candidates and scores returned by the semantic, full-text, and hybrid modes, and record the array length. - Compare the order of the top few items before and after enabling
usingReRank, adjustsimilarityandlimitto observe filtering and trimming, and verify the tokens of the cited text and record the number of items separately.