What this category's data looks like
Vocational college program setup filing materials include three types: the program setup filing form, talent demand justification, and faculty and equipment list. The filing form carries the program name, code, program length, and signature fields; the talent demand justification records the industry research date, number of positions, and justification conclusion; the faculty and equipment list specifies teacher titles, equipment models, and arrival dates. Materials are updated by academic year or application batch, and fields mainly consist of names, quantities, dates, signatures, and receipts. After entering the knowledge base retrieval service, the three types of materials serve as candidate fragment sources respectively, for tracing differences in how the same record is expressed across different materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate fragments and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and limit truncation). The "exception list and review conclusion" is completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup filing form | The name, quantity, date, and signature fields must be aligned item by item with the talent demand justification and the faculty and equipment list | In the search test, search by program name and batch number, check the program name, program length, and signature fields in the candidate fragments, and record the number of candidates and scores |
| Talent demand justification | The research date, number of positions, and justification conclusion must be consistent with the filing form's application date and the faculty and equipment list's arrival dates | Switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, and hybrid and search once with each, compare how the same number of positions is expressed in different candidates, and look at the similarity score |
| Faculty and equipment list | Teacher titles, equipment models, quantities, and arrival dates must be from the same version as the filing form and justification materials | Compare the order of the top few results before and after enabling usingReRank, check whether the equipment quantities and arrival dates are consistent with the filing form, and verify whether signature and receipt fragments are still retained after limit truncation |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The same program name is written differently in the filing form and the justification materials, and the quantities and dates do not match. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, without field-level comparison and same-version merging.
- Phenomenon: The faculty and equipment list version was not synchronized, and old-version equipment quantities are still recalled. Cause: The update batch was not marked with a version, and historical fragments were mixed into the retrieval candidates.
- Phenomenon: The filing form lacks a signature or receipt, so the review conclusion cannot be written. Cause: The scanned copy does not cover the signature page, and the candidate fragments only capture the body table.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: test once each with synonym-rewritten questions, compare the candidates and similarity scores, then toggle usingReRank on and off to see the ranking of the top few results, and record the number of candidates and the tokens of the cited text after limit truncation.
Business test: create an exception record, see whether the source material can be traced, and confirm that the exception is supported by the original record and, after the reviewer signs, is handed to the person in charge for handling.
- In the search test, fix
searchMode, search with synonymous questions for the same program name, record the number of candidates and scores, and mark fragments where the name, quantity, or date do not match. - Trace the hit fragments back to the source materials, check the signature fields and receipt pages, confirm the versions are consistent, then organize the exception list and hand it to the reviewer for signature.