What this category's data looks like
This category's data includes hazard rectification ledgers, drill plans and sign-in sheets, access control and school bus inspection records, and responsible person signature pages. Hazard items and rectification deadlines are the core fields that determine closed-loop judgment; drill headcount and sign-in, access control and school bus inspection items are process evidence; responsible person signatures are the condition for review to take effect. The material sources are daily kindergarten inspections, special drills, and access control system exports, with an update cadence of daily inspections, monthly drills, and per-semester summaries. When entering multi-turn dialogue and prompt features, the hazard ledger and inspection records serve as source materials for tracing, the drill plan and sign-in sheet serve as the comparison baseline, and the signature page serves as evidence for business review for the review conclusion. The anomaly list and review conclusion are answered by the model based on this; the original materials only provide the basis for judgment and do not generate an access entry point.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in application settings, outputting the referenced historical message range and answer constraints. Memory turns control how many previous dialogue turns can be referenced at most when answering; too small a value makes prior context unusable, while too large a value brings in irrelevant content and increases consumption. The "anomaly list and review conclusion" is then completed by the model, while the external entry point and authorization are handled by the publishing service and file permissions.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Hazard rectification ledger | Whether hazard items and rectification deadlines correspond one by one, and whether unclosed items have follow-up records | Check the memory turns value in application settings, run a trial with two consecutive follow-up questions, check whether the second round can carry forward the references from the first round, and record the number of entries in the reference array and the tokens of the referenced text |
| Drill plan and sign-in sheet | Whether the drill headcount and sign-in are consistent, and whether the drill record matches the plan process | Run a trial with two consecutive questions, ask about the plan process in the first round, use references in the second round to follow up on sign-in discrepancies, and check whether the historical message range in messages covers the required prior context |
| Access control and school bus inspection records | Whether inspection items are missing and whether responsible person signatures are complete | Compare the usage records of two runs to confirm the change in run consumption after adjusting the turns, and check whether the inspection item fields passed in variables are complete |
| Responsible person signature page | Whether signatures cover the three types of records: hazards, drills, and access control, and whether the review conclusion is traceable | Check the conversation record corresponding to chatId, confirm that the signature page enters the review conclusion as evidence for business review, and that the anomaly list corresponds one by one with the original records |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the hazard ledger shows rectification completed but there is no re-inspection record, and the anomaly list still lists it as pending. Cause: the hazard is not closed-loop; the rectification deadline and re-inspection signature are not both satisfied, and during tracing only the rectification action is retrieved, not the acceptance conclusion.
- Symptom: the drill sign-in headcount is inconsistent with the planned headcount in the plan, but the review conclusion passes according to the plan. Cause: the drill record does not match the plan; during comparison the sign-in sheet is not verified as an independent material, and only the plan text is referenced.
- Symptom: an access control or school bus inspection record lacks a certain inspection item, and the anomaly list does not flag it. Cause: the inspection item is missing, the original record field is empty, and the prior context in the multi-turn dialogue does not cover that inspection item, causing an omission.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: with two consecutive follow-up questions, see whether the second question carries forward the references from the first. The first question gives a clue to an anomaly record, and the second question uses references to follow up on the source material; check whether the answer references the correct historical message range, and verify the number of historical messages in messages and the tokens of the referenced text.
Business test: create an anomaly record and see whether it can be traced back to the source material. Check hazard items and rectification deadlines, drill headcount and sign-in, access control and school bus inspection items, and responsible person signatures; confirm that the anomaly is supported by original records and that reviewer signatures are complete, and that the chatId and variables records are traceable.
- Check the current memory turns value in application settings and match it with the prior context range required by the question; run a trial with two consecutive questions to confirm that the second round correctly carries forward the references from the first round.
- Compare the usage records of two runs to confirm that run consumption changes accordingly after adjusting the turns; check the reference scope of the three identifiers
chatId,messages, andvariablesin the records to avoid treating the opening message as prior context.