What this category's data looks like
Kindergarten operation behavior and quality self-assessment materials usually include three types: self-assessment reports, issue lists, and rectification plans. Sources are kindergarten self-entry, responsible inspector review, and education administrative department archiving, with an update cadence rolling by semester or assessment cycle. When the three types of materials enter the anomaly tracing and manual review function, their roles differ: the self-assessment report provides background and overall conclusions, the issue list carries specific anomaly items, and the rectification plan records disposition arrangements and receipts. Field characteristics center on name, quantity, date, signature, and version number. The same record may have different names, inconsistent quantities, misaligned dates, unsynchronized versions, or missing signature receipts across the three materials. Anomaly tracing requires aligning the items in the issue list item by item with the self-assessment report and rectification plan to form an anomaly list supported by original records, which is then signed and confirmed by the reviewer and handed to the responsible person for disposition.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, and outputs the historical message range and answer constraints to reference. The anomaly list and review conclusions are then completed by the model. Memory turns control how many previous turns of dialogue can be referenced at most when answering. If the value is too small, the preceding context cannot be used; if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Self-assessment report | Item-by-item consistency with the issue list and rectification plan on name, quantity, date, and signature | Retrieve the corresponding paragraph of the self-assessment report, check the name and quantity of the issue list items, compare the date and signature fields of the rectification plan, and record discrepancies |
| Issue list | Each anomaly is supported by original records and can be traced to the source material | Use two consecutive follow-up questions to locate the item, check whether the second round inherits the reference from the first round, and verify the reference sources in chatId and messages |
| Rectification plan | Version synchronized, signatures and receipts complete | Compare whether the version number of the rectification plan is the same version as the self-assessment report and issue list, check whether signatures and receipts are missing, and verify the kindergarten identifier in variables |
| Memory turns | Matches the preceding context range required by the question | Check the current value in the application settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions, and compare the usage records of the two runs |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: the name and quantity of the same record do not match between the self-assessment report and the issue list. Cause: the two materials are filled in separately, without field-level alignment and version synchronization.
- Phenomenon: the date of the rectification plan is misaligned with the date of the self-assessment report, and signatures or receipts are missing. Cause: update cadences are not synchronized, and the signature step is not fed back into the archived materials.
- Phenomenon: when the second question uses a reference, the answer does not address the question, responses become slower, and consumption rises. Cause: the memory turns value does not match the preceding context range required by the question, bringing in irrelevant content.
How to verify the setup
This function acceptance: ask two consecutive follow-up questions, see whether the second question inherits the reference from the first question, and verify the presentation of chatId, messages, and variables within the historical message range.
Business test: create an anomaly record, see whether it can be traced to the source material, and check whether the anomaly list is supported by original records and whether the reviewer has signed.
- Check the current memory turns value in the application settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions, and confirm that the second question can correctly inherit the reference from the first question.
- Retrieve the three materials: the self-assessment report, issue list, and rectification plan; compare name, quantity, date, signature, and version number item by item; record inconsistencies and hand them to the responsible person for disposition.