What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the enterprise self-directed skilled talent evaluation scenario, and the source materials are the evaluation filing forms, evaluation specifications, and candidate rosters retained during the filing stage. The filing form states the evaluation occupation, level, and batch; the evaluation specification gives the assessment modules and scoring criteria; the roster lists candidate identity, trade, and declared level. The three types of materials are updated by batch, and the fields include name, quantity, date, and signature column. When entering the progress record and statistical verification function, the filing form serves as the baseline for the batch and criteria, the evaluation specification serves as the basis for statistical items and exceptional cases, and the roster serves as the underlying register for the number of records and personnel details. Before extracting data for a weekly or monthly report, first confirm the version and signature status of the three materials, then hand them to the tool calling node in the workflow to determine whether to initiate a call based on the introduction and parameter values, and the call result serves as the basis for subsequent verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the tool calling node in the workflow (the model decides whether to call, and the node executes), and outputs the tool call result (the input parameters and return in the call record). The "progress table and statistical criteria description" is then completed by a subsequent AI node or manual verification.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation filing form | Fields, dates, and signatures must be consistent with the evaluation specification, and the batch name must not be written differently in the two places | Check the occupation, level, and batch date in the filing form and the evaluation specification, compare item by item whether the signature columns are complete, and list separately the batches missing signatures or receipts |
| Evaluation specification | The statistical criteria must be written in the table header, and the assessment modules and exceptional cases must correspond to the filing form | Open the specification and check the module names and scoring criteria, confirm consistency with the batch in the filing form, copy the exceptional cases to the header of the progress table, and mark the version number |
| Candidate roster | The number of records and the statistical count must match, and the personnel names and dates must be consistent with the filing form | Count the records one by one according to the roster, compare with the batch headcount in the filing form, list separately the entries whose names or dates do not match, and check whether receipts are retained |
| Tool calling node | The model judges whether to call based on the tool introduction, parameter introduction, and whether it is required; when there are no required parameters, it may fabricate values | Check the diamond-shaped connections and node status on the canvas, run a trial with a question missing required fields, view the input parameters and return in the call record, and confirm whether it asks a follow-up question or calls according to the introduction |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the same candidate's name or date does not match between the roster and the filing form, and the total shifts accordingly. Cause: the two materials were entered separately, without item-by-item comparison and version synchronization.
- Symptom: after the evaluation specification is updated, the progress table is still counted according to the old criteria, and the number of modules does not match. Cause: the version was not synchronized, and the header did not mark the criteria source and effective date.
- Symptom: the batch is missing signatures or receipts, yet the batch total appears in the call record. Cause: tool calling is not the same as scheduled execution; the model may call directly according to the introduction without asking a follow-up question first.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: run a trial with a question missing required parameters, 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 whether the values of toolChoice and functionCall in the record are consistent with the tool introduction.
Business test: verify the total with one week of records, see whether the criteria and exceptions are clearly written, record the number of citations by array length, verify the tokens of the cited text separately, and do not compare the two as equal.
- Open the tool node's introduction field and parameter configuration, check the introduction, parameter introduction, and whether it is required item by item, confirm that the required items correspond to the business material fields, and then run a trial once with a question missing that field.
- Compare the number of roster records for one week with the batch headcount in the filing form and the number of modules in the evaluation specification item by item, list separately the entries whose names, quantities, or dates do not match, and check whether signatures and receipts are complete.