What this category's data looks like
Daily materials for school safety hazard inspections and campus incident reporting include safety inspection forms, hazard rectification ledgers, and emergency incident reports. Safety inspection forms are generated by inspection batch and record inspection items, locations, dates, and inspectors; hazard rectification ledgers are updated on a rolling basis by hazard number and record hazard names, quantities, rectification deadlines, responsible persons, and closure signatures; emergency incident reports are each written separately by incident occurrence time and record the incident process, persons involved, handling measures, and receipts. When these three types of materials enter knowledge base retrieval and recall, their roles differ: safety inspection forms provide the original inspection records, used to trace the time and location of a hazard's first discovery; hazard rectification ledgers provide the rectification process and closure status, used to check whether the name, quantity, and date of the same hazard are consistent over time; emergency incident reports provide the original incident narrative and approval receipts, used to check whether there are missing signatures or unsynchronized versions between the report and the ledger. In terms of update cadence, inspection forms are added by batch, ledgers are modified as rectification progresses, and incident reports are archived by incident, with different field and signature requirements for each.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate chunks and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming). The anomaly list and review conclusions are completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Safety inspection form | Whether inspection items, locations, dates, and inspector signatures are complete, and whether the name, quantity, and date of the same hazard match between the inspection form and the ledger | In the search test, switch searchMode, test once each with synonymous questions, record the number of candidates and scores, and check whether the returned chunks cover the original inspection form records |
| Hazard rectification ledger | Whether hazard names, quantities, rectification deadlines, responsible persons, and closure signatures are consistent, and whether there are unsynchronized versions | Turn usingReRank on and off to compare the ranking of the top few results, check whether ledger chunks and inspection form chunks appear at the same time, and verify the signature and receipt fields |
| Emergency incident report | Whether the incident process, persons involved, handling measures, and receipt signatures are complete, and whether the dates and names in the report and the ledger do not match | Adjust similarity and limit to observe candidate trimming, check the tokens of the returned reference text, and record the number of array entries separately |
| Anomaly list and review conclusions | Whether the anomaly is supported by original records, whether the reviewer has signed, and whether the conclusion can be handed to the responsible person for handling | Trace back to the source materials by anomaly number, compare the names, quantities, dates, and signatures in the two materials, and confirm the versions are consistent |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, or date of the same hazard does not match between the inspection form and the ledger. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, and consistency was not checked by hazard number.
- Symptom: The ledger has been updated to a new version, but retrieval still recalls chunks from the old version. Cause: After the material was updated, it was not re-ingested, and the version was not synchronized.
- Symptom: The incident report lacks a reviewer signature or receipt. Cause: When the report was archived, the signature fields were not completed, and the retrieved chunks cannot support the review conclusion.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then turn rerank on and off to check the ranking of the top few results.
Business test: create one anomaly record and see whether it can be traced back to the source material.
- In the search test, switch
searchMode, test once each with synonymous questions, record the number of candidates and scores, then turnusingReRankon and off to compare the ranking of the top few results. - Trace back to the inspection form, ledger, and incident report by anomaly number, compare names, quantities, dates, and signatures, confirm the versions are consistent, and then hand them to the responsible person for handling.