What this category's data looks like
In anomaly tracing and manual review for regular higher education institution admissions enrollment and filing, materials come from three categories: enrollment plans, filing rules, and admission rosters. Enrollment plans are published by batch and subject category, including institution-major groups, planned numbers, and subject selection requirements; filing rules are updated by province and year, including filing ratios, tie-breaking sorting, and withdrawal conditions; admission rosters are generated by round, including candidate number, filing score, major, admission status, and signature field. When these three categories of materials enter this function, enrollment plans and filing rules serve as the basis for judgment, admission rosters serve as the records being verified, and anomaly clues are generated by comparing the rosters against the plans and rules. Field characteristics: names, quantities, dates, signatures, and receipts must be aligned item by item; if the name, quantity, or date of the same record does not match across two materials, the version is not synchronized, or signatures or receipts are missing, it constitutes an anomaly. The update cadence rolls forward with batch progression and supplementary volunteer recruitment, and manual review must be completed within a time limit after each round of filing.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turn count and prompt configuration in the application settings, and the output references the historical message range and answer constraints. The anomaly list and review conclusions are then completed by the model. The memory turn count controls how many previous turns of dialogue 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Enrollment plan | The institution-major group name, planned number, subject selection requirements, and publication date must be aligned item by item with the admission roster | Check the current memory turn count value in the application settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions, and check whether the second round can carry forward the reference from the first round |
| Filing rules | The filing ratio, tie-breaking sorting, withdrawal conditions, and version date must be consistent with the filing results of the current round | Compare the usage records of two runs to confirm that after adjusting the turn count, the run consumption changes accordingly |
| Admission roster | The candidate number, filing score, major, admission status, and signature field must be supported by original records | Use chatId to locate the session, call messages to review the historical message range, and use variables to record the review fields |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the enrollment plan and the admission roster. Cause: The two materials are maintained separately, without item-by-item field comparison and receipt confirmation.
- Phenomenon: The filing rule version is not synchronized, and judgment is still made according to the old ratio and sorting conditions. Cause: After the rules were updated, they were not bound to the filing results of the current round, and the version date was not checked.
- Phenomenon: The admission roster lacks signatures or receipts, and the review conclusion is not supported by original records. Cause: The signature field and receipt were not archived with the roster, and the reviewer cannot sign for confirmation.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: ask two consecutive follow-up questions and see whether the second question carries forward the reference from the first question; use chatId to locate the session, call messages to review the historical message range, and use variables to record the review fields.
Business test: create an anomalous record and see whether it can be traced back to the source material.
- Check the current memory turn count value in the application settings, match it with the preceding text range required by the question, and run a trial with two consecutive questions.
- Compare the usage records of two runs to confirm that after adjusting the turn count, the run consumption changes accordingly, and check whether the opening message is treated as preceding text.