What this category's data looks like
This category's data looks like this. For progress records and statistical verification of safety grading and classification of university laboratories, there are three types of materials: the laboratory grading and classification table, the hazard source list, and the safety responsibility statement. The grading and classification table registers entries one by one by laboratory room number and risk level; the hazard source list records the names, quantities, and storage locations of hazard sources such as chemicals, gas cylinders, and equipment; the safety responsibility statement contains the responsible person and signature, date. The three types of materials come from different sources: the grading and classification table comes from the Laboratory and Equipment Management Office, the hazard source list is updated by each laboratory per semester, and the safety responsibility statement is signed as personnel change or annually. In terms of update cadence, the grading and classification table is adjusted by academic year, the hazard source list is supplemented monthly or quarterly, and the responsibility statement is re-signed annually or when personnel change. Field characteristics are concentrated in name, quantity, date, signature, and version number. When entering the tool calling node, the grading and classification table serves as the main table providing laboratory objects and levels, the hazard source list provides hazard source entries and quantities, and the safety responsibility statement provides the responsible person, signature, and receipt status; together the three support progress records and verification of statistical criteria.
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), outputting 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Laboratory grading and classification table | Check whether the laboratory name, room number, risk level, date, and signature are consistent with the hazard source list and safety responsibility statement | Compare the laboratory name and room number across the three materials one by one, check the level, date, and signature fields, and record discrepant entries |
| Hazard source list | Check whether the hazard source name, quantity, storage location, date, and signature are consistent with the grading and classification table and safety responsibility statement | Check item by item by hazard source name and quantity, inspect the version number and signature receipt, and mark entries whose quantity or date does not match |
| Safety responsibility statement | Check whether the responsible person, signature, date, and receipt are consistent with the grading and classification table and hazard source list | Check the signature and date of the responsibility statement, inspect whether the receipts are complete, and confirm the version is in sync with the current grading and classification table |
| Tool calling node | Check whether the tool description, parameter description, and whether it is required correspond to the business material fields | Open the tool node description and parameter configuration, run a trial with a question missing required fields, and check the input parameters and return of toolChoice and functionCall in the call record |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name, quantity, or date of the same laboratory does not match between the grading and classification table and the hazard source list. Cause: the two materials are filled in by different personnel at different times without cross-checking.
- Symptom: the responsibility statement signature or receipt is missing, but the progress table still shows all collected. Cause: the statistical criteria do not list signature and receipt as completion conditions, and the version is not in sync.
- Symptom: values that do not exist in the business materials appear in the tool return result, or the model answers directly without calling the tool. Cause: the parameter description and whether it is required are not aligned with the material fields, and the prompt does not guide follow-up questions.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: run a trial with a question missing required parameters, check the input parameters 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 whether the values of toolChoice and functionCall in the record are consistent with the three items: tool description, parameter description, and whether it is required.
Business test: use one week of records to check the totals, see whether the criteria and exceptions are clearly written, confirm that the record count and statistical count match, and write the criteria into the header.
- Open the tool nodes one by one, check whether the tool description can be understood on its own, whether the parameter description and whether it is required correspond to the material fields, and inspect the diamond interface connections and node status on the canvas.
- Run a trial with a question missing the signature or receipt field, view the input parameters and return in the call record, and confirm whether the model first asks a follow-up question or directly fabricates parameter values.