What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the enterprise independent skill talent evaluation scenario, and the materials include three types: enterprise evaluation filing forms, evaluation specifications, and candidate rosters. The filing form records the evaluation agency, occupation name, and filing date; the evaluation specification states the evaluation method, scoring criteria, and signature field; the roster lists candidate names, ID numbers, and declared occupations. When these three types of materials enter this feature, the filing form and evaluation specification serve as the source basis for exception tracing, and the roster serves as the base ledger for quantity and personnel comparison; in multi-turn dialogue, the model needs to match the current follow-up question with the material names, dates, and quantities from previous turns. The material update cadence is per evaluation batch, synchronized once after each batch is filed, and the field characteristics are five types: name, quantity, date, signature, and receipt. The generation of the exception list and review conclusion depends on the traceability of these materials in the dialogue, and the historical message range determines how many turns back the model can review submitted material information.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, and the output references the historical message range and answer constraints. The "exception list and review conclusion" is 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 text cannot be used, and if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | Matches the preceding text range required by the question | Check the current value in the application settings, and run a trial with two consecutive follow-up questions to observe whether the second question can carry forward the reference from the first question; check whether the historical turns retained in messages cover the turn where the exception record is located |
| Enterprise evaluation filing form | Name, quantity, date, and signature match the evaluation specification | Compare item by item the agency name, occupation name, and filing date in the filing form with the corresponding fields in the evaluation specification and roster; when the name, quantity, or date of the same record does not match across the two materials, record it in the exception list |
| Evaluation specification | Version and signature field are complete, and receipts are complete | Check whether the version number of the evaluation specification is synchronized with the filing form, and check whether the signature field and receipt are missing; if the version is not synchronized or the signature or receipt is missing, list it as a pending review item and hand it to the responsible person for handling |
| Candidate roster | Personnel count and ID numbers are consistent with the filing form | Use chatId to associate the dialogue of the same batch, and check whether the number of people in the roster is consistent with the declared number in the filing form; if the quantities do not match, trace back to the source materials to confirm which material needs correction |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The second question answers off-topic when using a reference. Cause: The memory turns are too small, the preceding material names and dates do not enter the reference range, and the model cannot carry forward the reference from the previous turn.
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the filing form and the roster. Cause: The two materials are updated separately, versions are not synchronized, and there is a lack of a unified comparison and signature confirmation step.
- Phenomenon: The review conclusion lacks a signature or receipt. Cause: The signature field in the evaluation specification is not synchronized with the batch, and the receipt is not filled in after manual review is completed, resulting in the exception list having no original record support.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: run a trial with two consecutive follow-up questions; the first question submits an exception record, and the second question uses a reference to ask about that record, to see whether the second question carries forward the reference from the first question; at the same time, check whether the historical range retained in messages and variables is consistent with the memory turns value.
Business test: create an exception record, see whether it can be traced back to the source materials, and confirm that the name, quantity, date, and signature in the three materials—filing form, evaluation specification, and roster—can all be traced back.
- Check the current memory turns value in the application settings, and run a trial with two consecutive questions to confirm that the second question can correctly carry forward the reference from the first question.
- Compare the usage records of two runs to confirm that consumption changes accordingly after adjusting the turns; at the same time, check whether the historical message range in the dialogue associated with
chatIdcovers the turn where the exception record is located.