What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of formulating talent cultivation plans for vocational colleges. The source materials include talent cultivation plans, curriculum standards, job competency analysis tables, and their accompanying approval records. The update cadence rolls with specialty adjustments, semester revisions, and acceptance checkpoints. The three types of materials play different roles in the feature: the talent cultivation plan is the master record, while the curriculum standards and job competency analysis tables carry course-side and job-side fields respectively, used for cross-comparison. Field characteristics are concentrated in names, quantities, dates, version numbers, and signature fields. The same record should be able to align item by item across the three materials. After the materials enter the multi-turn dialogue and prompt stages, they are referenced as historical messages. The exception list and review conclusions are answered by the model based on these. External access and authorization are handled by the publishing service and file permissions.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, which output the range of referenced historical messages and the answer constraints. The "exception list and review conclusions" are then completed by the model. The memory turns control how many previous dialogue turns can be referenced at most when answering. If the value is too small, the preceding context cannot be used; if too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Talent cultivation plan | Align item by item with the names, quantities, dates, version numbers, and signature fields in the curriculum standards and job competency analysis tables | Retrieve the corresponding fields from the three materials, check whether the same record is consistent, record discrepancies, and note the original source |
| Curriculum standards | Consistent with the course names, credit hour quantities, and effective dates in the talent cultivation plan, with complete signatures or receipts | Compare item by item by course, check whether version numbers are synchronized, and list those missing signatures or receipts in the exception list |
| Job competency analysis table | Consistent with the job names, competency item quantities, and dates in the talent cultivation plan and curriculum standards | Compare item by item by job, check signatures and receipts, link discrepancies back to the source materials, and record chatId and messages |
| Continuous follow-up questions | The second round can correctly carry forward the references from the first round, and the historical message range matches the answer constraints | Run a trial with two consecutive rounds of questions, check variables and the historical message range, and confirm that the references in the second question are correct |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The names, quantities, and dates of the same record do not match between the talent cultivation plan and the curriculum standards. Cause: The two materials were revised separately, without field-level cross-comparison.
- Symptom: The curriculum standard version is not synchronized, and old-version fields are still referenced. Cause: The version number was not updated with the revision, and the historical message range brings in outdated content.
- Symptom: The job competency analysis table lacks signatures or receipts, and the review conclusion cannot be finalized. Cause: The approval step did not return the signed documents, and the exception list lacks support from original records.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: Ask two consecutive follow-up questions, see whether the second question carries forward the references from the first question, and check chatId, messages, variables, the historical message range, and the answer constraints.
Business test: Create an exception record, see whether it can be traced back to the source material, confirm that the exception is supported by original records, and after the reviewer signs, hand it to the person in charge for handling.
- In the application settings, check the current value of memory turns, match it with the preceding context range required by the question, and compare the usage records of two runs.
- Run a trial with two consecutive rounds of questions, check whether the references in the second round are correctly carried forward, and confirm that the opening message is not treated as preceding context.