What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the enterprise independent skill talent evaluation scenario, and the materials include three types: the enterprise evaluation filing form, the evaluation specification, and the candidate roster. The filing form comes from the filing step of the human resources department and records the evaluation entity, occupational direction, and filing date; the evaluation specification is maintained by the technical standards group and states the level classification, assessment method, and scoring rules; the roster is organized by the examination affairs group by batch and contains candidate identity, declared level, and contact information. The materials are updated by batch, synchronized once before each batch of evaluation starts, and archived after the evaluation ends. Field characteristics center on four types: name, quantity, date, and signature: the candidate names, declared number of people, and evaluation date in the filing form and roster must be consistent, and the version number of the evaluation specification must correspond to the version referenced in the filing form. When entering the progress records and statistical verification function, the filing form serves as the baseline for the statistical scope, the evaluation specification serves as the basis for exception determination, and the roster serves as the source of record counts; after the three are associated by batch, the progress table and statistical scope description are generated.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is performed by the connection configuration of the deployment environment (server side), not by the capability execution of a model node, and outputs whether the connection is available (service startup result and connection logs). The progress table and statistical scope description are then completed by deployment handover and subsequent business processing.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise evaluation filing form | The evaluation entity, occupational direction, filing date, and referenced version of the evaluation specification in the filing form must be consistent item by item with the corresponding fields in the evaluation specification and roster | Check the version number, evaluation date, and signature field of the filing form against the evaluation specification; compare with the declared level and number of people in the roster |
| Evaluation specification | The level classification, assessment method, and scoring rules in the evaluation specification must match the filing content of the filing form and the declared level in the roster | Check whether the specification version is synchronized with the version referenced in the filing form; check whether the exception clauses in the specification are stated in the statistical scope description |
| Candidate roster | The candidate names, declared levels, and evaluation dates in the roster must be consistent with the corresponding records in the filing form and evaluation specification, and signatures or receipts must be complete | Compare names, quantities, and dates one by one; check whether records missing signatures or receipts are separately marked |
| Main business database and log database connections | The main business database connection variable points to the actually used main business database and can connect; the log database is configured separately or left blank according to the instructions to reuse the main database | In the deployment environment, check that the value of this variable is consistent with the database address; view the database to which logs are written and check the log records |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same candidate's name, declared number of people, or evaluation date does not match between the roster and the filing form. Cause: The two materials were entered separately and no cross-check within the batch was performed.
- Symptom: The evaluation specification version is inconsistent with the version referenced in the filing form, and the statistical scope description still uses the old version. Cause: After the version update, it was not synchronized to the filing form and the statistical scope description.
- Symptom: The roster contains records missing signatures or receipts, but the progress table still includes them in the total. Cause: The signature field was not used as a condition for determining record validity.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: connect once item by item to the main business database, log database, cache, and vector database, and check the connection results in the startup logs; check that the instances pointed to by MONGODB_URI, REDIS_URL, and PG_URL are consistent with the deployment instructions.
Business test: use one week of records to check the total, and see whether the scope and exceptions are clearly stated; check whether the statistical scope description is written into the table header, and whether the record count and statistical count match.
- In the deployment environment, check the values of the main business database and log database connection variables, confirm that the log database is configured separately or left blank according to the instructions to reuse the main database, and view the connection results in the startup logs.
- Extract the filing form, evaluation specification, and roster by batch, compare names, quantities, dates, and signatures item by item, and write inconsistent items and exception clauses into the table header of the statistical scope description.