What this category's data looks like
In the student disciplinary and appeal handling category, materials include three types: disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements. Disciplinary fact materials are recorded by counselors or student affairs departments, and contain fields such as time, location, behavior description, persons involved, and quantity, and require the recorder's signature and date; disciplinary decision documents are issued by the department or school, and contain the disciplinary type, the clauses relied upon, the effective date, the delivery receipt, and the acknowledgment signature; appeal statements are submitted by students, and contain the appeal request, reasons, evidence list, submission date, and the student's own signature. The three types of materials are updated by semester or event milestone, and multiple versions are often produced due to correction, review, delivery, and other stages. After the materials enter the knowledge base retrieval node, each is recalled as a cited source, for subsequent comparison of whether fields, dates, and signatures are consistent, and to support exception tracing and manual review.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the citation output of the knowledge base retrieval node, which outputs an array of cited content, each entry containing the original text fragment and source identifier, and the length may be 0. Even if no content is found, the output pipeline still completes. The "exception list and review conclusion" is then completed by subsequent AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Whether the name, quantity, date, recorder's signature, and receipt are complete and consistent with the disciplinary decision document | Locate the original text fragment of this material in the citation array, check the fields and signatures, and record inconsistent items |
| Disciplinary decision document | Whether the disciplinary type, clauses relied upon, effective date, delivery receipt, and acknowledgment signature correspond to the appeal statement | Open the citation marker to point back to the original paragraph, compare dates and signatures, and confirm whether the versions are in sync |
| Appeal statement | Whether the appeal request, reasons, evidence list, submission date, and the student's own signature mutually corroborate with the aforementioned materials | Check whether the number of citation entries matches the hit materials; treat an empty array as normal output |
| Cited content output | The number of returned entries matches the hit materials; empty is also normal; hit details can be checked in quoteList within responseData (non-streaming module results returned with detailed output enabled) | Run a test with a question that matches no materials, and see whether the array is empty while the pipeline continues |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name and quantity of the same disciplinary record do not match between the fact materials and the disciplinary decision document. Cause: the two materials are filled in at different stages, and are archived without field-level comparison.
- Symptom: the versions cited by the disciplinary decision document and the appeal statement are inconsistent, and clauses or dates deviate. Cause: after correction or review, the new version is not synced to the knowledge base, and the old version is still recalled.
- Symptom: the delivery receipt or student signature is missing, and appeal handling lacks evidence. Cause: the materials enter retrieval before signatures are fully collected during the material circulation stage, and the cited fragments cannot point back to the complete original text.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: ask a question that has original-text support, and check whether the citation array and markers can point back to the original text; then ask a question that matches no materials, and confirm that the array is empty while the pipeline completes. Check the hit details in quoteList within responseData, record the number of citation entries separately, and quoteMaxToken only checks the tokens of the cited text; do not compare the two for equality.
Business test: create an exception record and see whether it can be traced back to the source material.
- In the node, check whether the selected knowledge base collections and their vector models are consistent, and open the search parameter panel to check the values item by item.
- In the conversation, open the citation markers, check against the source documents whether each citation can point back to the original paragraph, and record the number of array entries.