What this category's data looks like
Materials for primary and secondary school enrollment organizations fall into three groups by category: enrollment plans, application material checklists, and admission lists. Enrollment plans come from education authorities and school enrollment leadership groups, updated by academic year or batch, with fields including planned enrollment numbers, application start and end dates, and reviewer signature fields. Application material checklists are compiled by enrollment staff and updated on a rolling basis as applications progress, with fields including student name, ID number, material name, number of copies, submission date, and receipt signature. Admission lists are consolidated by the review team and finalized before public announcement by batch, with fields including admission sequence number, student name, admission basis, list version number, and reviewer signature. When the three types of materials enter the multi-turn dialogue and prompt feature, they play different roles: enrollment plans provide the rule basis, application material checklists provide item-by-item original records, and admission lists provide the result criteria. Exception tracing and manual review require field-by-field comparison across these three groups of materials, locating name, quantity, and date discrepancies in the same record, confirming version synchronization and complete signature receipts, and forming an exception list and review conclusions.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, outputting the reference 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 fails to use prior context, too large a value brings in irrelevant content and increases consumption. The "exception list and review conclusions" are completed by the model next, while the external entry point and authorization are handled by the publishing service and file permissions.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enrollment plan | Whether the planned enrollment number, application start and end dates, and reviewer signature field are item-by-item consistent with the application material checklist | Retrieve the original plan text, verify dates and signatures by field, record inconsistent items, and check the field mapping in variables |
| Application material checklist | Whether student name, ID number, material name, number of copies, submission date, and receipt signature are consistent with the corresponding records in the admission list | Use the checklist as the original record to compare item by item against the admission list, write discrepancies into the exception list, and check the record range referenced by historical turns in messages |
| Admission list | Whether the admission sequence number, student name, admission basis, list version number, and reviewer signature are consistent with the batch criteria of the enrollment plan | Check the list version number against the plan batch, confirm the reviewer signature is complete, and associate chatId to locate the tracing records within the same session |
| Exception list and review conclusions | Whether each exception is supported by original records and whether reviewer signatures are complete | Re-check the three materials—plan, checklist, and list—item by item, complete signatures and receipts, and hand over to the person in charge for handling |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name or ID number of the same student does not match between the application material checklist and the admission list. Cause: the two materials are entered by different personnel, lacking field-by-field comparison and signature confirmation.
- Symptom: the batch dates of the enrollment plan and the admission list are inconsistent. Cause: after the plan was updated, the list continued to use the old version, the version number was not synchronized, and the latest finalized plan was not re-checked during review.
- Symptom: the application material checklist lacks receipt signatures, and exception records cannot be traced. Cause: receipts were not fully collected at the submission stage, and the reviewer did not sign and confirm on the exception list.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: ask two consecutive follow-up questions, see whether the second question carries on the reference from the first, and check whether the memory turns value matches the historical message range; also check whether the three identifiers chatId, messages, and variables are referenced consistently in the session.
Business test: create an exception record, see whether it can be traced back to the source material, and confirm that names, quantities, dates, and signatures across the enrollment plan, application material checklist, and admission list can all be traced back.
- In the application settings, check the current value of memory turns, run a trial with two consecutive questions, and confirm that the second round correctly carries on the reference from the first round.
- Compare the usage records of two runs, confirm that run consumption changes accordingly after adjusting the number of turns, and check that the opening message is not treated as prior context.