What this category's data looks like
Student awards, grants, loans, and financial hardship determination involve three types of materials: the family financial hardship determination form, the scholarship/grant application form, and the loan receipt. The determination form is filled out by the student, reviewed by the class, and then signed level by level; its fields include family members, income, hardship level, and review opinions. The application form is submitted by academic-year batch; its fields include student ID, award name, amount, and signature field. The loan receipt is issued by the handling bank; its fields include contract number, disbursement date, and receipt status. The three types of materials have different sources and different update rhythms: the determination form is updated centrally by academic year, the application form rolls forward by batch, and the receipt is returned according to disbursement progress. When entering exception tracing and manual review, the determination form serves as the original basis for hardship identity and the review chain, the application form serves as the basis for declaring awards and amounts, and the receipt serves as the evidence of loan arrival and contract performance. The three cross-verify one another, and if any one is missing or its fields are misaligned, exception tracing will break its chain.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step 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 exception list and review conclusions are then completed by the model, while the original records used for tracing are still based on the determination form, application form, and receipt. Memory turns control how many previous dialogue turns can be referenced at most when answering; if the value is too small, prior context cannot be used, and if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Family financial hardship determination form | The name, hardship level, review date, and signatures at each level must match the application form and receipt | Retrieve the original determination form, check the signature field and review date, and use chatId to locate the session containing that record |
| Scholarship/grant application form | The student ID, award name, amount, and submission date must be consistent with the identity in the determination form and the disbursement record in the receipt | Compare the name and student ID on the application form and determination form, and use messages to trace back the follow-up context of that batch |
| Loan receipt | The contract number, disbursement date, and receipt status must match the application form amount and the hardship level in the determination form | Inspect the original receipt and disbursement transaction records; those missing the receipt or with incomplete signatures are listed in the exception list |
| Exception list and review conclusions | Each exception must be supported by original records and note the reviewer's signature | Collect exception fields by variables, and attach the source material page number and review conclusion to each item |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: the same student's name or student ID is written inconsistently on the determination form and application form, so the person cannot be matched during tracing. Cause: the two materials use different reporting standards and no unified validation was performed.
- Phenomenon: the application form amount does not match the loan receipt disbursement amount, so it cannot be determined which one should prevail during review. Cause: batch versions were not synchronized, and the old application form is still in circulation.
- Phenomenon: the determination form lacks a review signature or the receipt lacks the handling signature/seal, so even when the exception record is traced to the source, no conclusion can be reached. Cause: signatures were missed during material collection, and no completeness check was performed during archiving.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: ask two consecutive follow-up questions; the first asks about listing a certain exception, and the second uses a referential expression to ask about its source material. See whether the second question carries forward the reference from the first; also check whether the three identifiers chatId, messages, and variables appear in the output.
Business test: create an exception record, see whether it can be traced to the source material, and confirm that the exception list and review conclusions are supported by original records and the reviewer's signature.
- In the application settings, check the current value of memory turns, match it with the prior context range required by the question, and run a trial with two consecutive questions to test referential continuity.
- Compare the usage records of two runs before and after adjusting the number of turns, and confirm that the change in consumption and response speed are within an acceptable range.