What this category's data looks like
Graduate training process management covers materials such as training plans, proposal reports, and mid-term assessment forms. Each material is updated on a rolling basis by semester or milestone, and fields include name, quantity, date, and signed receipt. Training plans record course and credit arrangements, proposal reports carry topic selection and supervisor comments, and mid-term assessment forms summarize stage results and review conclusions. When the materials enter the multi-turn dialogue and prompt feature, the training plan, proposal report, and mid-term assessment form serve as reference sources for historical messages, and the model compares fields and dates across continuous follow-up questions to form the preliminary basis for the anomaly list and review conclusion.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, which outputs the reference range of historical messages and the answer constraints. The "anomaly list and review conclusion" is then completed by the model. 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; if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Training plan | The name, quantity, date, and signature fields must correspond item by item with the proposal report and mid-term assessment form | Retrieve the original record of this plan, verify the course names and credit quantities, and check whether the signed receipts are complete |
| Proposal report | The topic name, date, and supervisor signature must be consistent with the mid-term assessment form | In the dialogue, reference the historical turns in messages, compare the dates and signature fields of the two materials, and mark inconsistent items |
| Mid-term assessment form | The quantity of stage results and the review date must be supported by original records | Use chatId to locate the session containing this form, trace back to the source materials, and confirm version synchronization and receipt completeness |
| Review conclusion | The conclusion must be supported by original records and signed by the reviewer | Record the reviewer's signature status in variables, and check the anomaly list against the source materials before handing it to the person in charge for handling |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the training plan and the proposal report. Cause: The range of historical messages referenced in the multi-turn dialogue does not cover the corresponding turns, and field comparison is missed.
- Phenomenon: The version of the mid-term assessment form is not synchronized, and signatures or receipts are missing. Cause: The value of memory turns does not match the prior context range required by the question, and earlier turns are not referenced.
- Phenomenon: When the second question uses a reference, the answer does not address the question, and responses become slower with increased consumption. Cause: Too many turns bring in irrelevant content, or the opening message is treated as prior context.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: ask two consecutive follow-up questions and see whether the second question picks up the reference from the first question; check the recorded range of chatId, messages, and variables in the session.
Business test: create an anomalous record and see whether the source material can be traced, and confirm that the anomaly list and review conclusion are supported by original records and signed by the reviewer.
- In the application settings, check the current value of memory turns and match it with the prior context range required by the question.
- Compare the usage records of two runs to confirm that runtime consumption changes accordingly after adjusting the number of turns.