What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of admission and filing for regular higher education institutions. The core materials include three categories: admission plans, filing rules, and admission rosters. Admission plans are published by province, batch, and institution professional group, with fields including planned number, subject selection requirements, tuition, and location of the institution; dates are subject to the batch and adjustment announcements published by the provincial admissions office. Filing rules include the filing ratio, tie-breaking ranking, and conditions for soliciting voluntary applications, and are often updated in the form of annual documents and supplementary notices; signatures and receipts need to be checked. Admission rosters are generated by institutions by province and by batch, and include the candidate number, name, major, admission status, and approval signature. When the three categories of materials enter the knowledge base retrieval node, each plays a different role: admission plans are used to compare planned numbers and subject selection restrictions, filing rules are used to determine whether an anomaly is normal fluctuation within the rules, and admission rosters are used to locate specific records and signature fields. In terms of update cadence, plans and rules are released on a rolling basis as batches progress, while rosters are archived after the admission of each batch is completed. Version desynchronization and missing signatures are common problems.
Configuration and implementation checks
The citation output of the knowledge base retrieval node outputs only an array of cited content, each item containing the original text snippet and source identifier, and the length can be 0. The anomaly list and review conclusions must be handled subsequently by AI nodes, code nodes, or humans. The cited content is output as an array, and the length can be 0; even if no content is found, the output chain will still run through.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Admission plan | Fields, dates, and signatures: whether the planned number, subject selection requirements, location of the institution, batch date, and publishing unit seal are consistent with the filing rules | Open the citation marker to compare against the source document, and check the planned number and subject selection fields; record the number of citations, i.e. the array length, and check quoteMaxToken separately only as the citation content budget |
| Filing rules | The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match across the two materials; when versions are not synchronized, the latest signed document prevails | Compare the filing ratio, tie-breaking ranking, and plan material dates in the rule documents; use responseData (non-streaming module results returned with detailed output enabled) to view the retrieval return structure and confirm the matched materials |
| Admission roster | Missing signature or receipt: whether the roster approval column, receipt date, candidate number, and name can be traced back to the original record | Open the citation markers one by one to trace back to the original paragraphs of the roster; use quoteList to view the cited snippet and source identifier, and create an anomaly record to trace it to the source material |
| Cited content output | The number of returned items is consistent with the matched materials, and being empty is also normal; when the cited snippet does not match the original text, do not directly attribute it to length truncation | Run a test with a question that has no matching materials, and see that the output is empty while the chain continues; then check whether this round matched anything and which material was matched, and finally look at truncation |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name and major name of the same candidate do not match between the admission plan and the admission roster. Cause: The two materials are entered at different stages, and field-level comparison and signature confirmation have not been performed.
- Symptom: The filing rules have been updated, but the plan materials still cite the old version's date and ratio. Cause: Versions are not synchronized, the old file in the knowledge base has not been removed, and retrieval matches the old version.
- Symptom: The roster approval column lacks a signature or receipt, and the anomaly record cannot be traced to the source. Cause: The archiving stage has not collected all signatures and receipts, and the cited snippet covers only the main text but not the signature/seal page.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: ask a question with original-text support, and check whether the citation array and markers can trace back to the original text; then ask a question with no matching materials, and confirm that the array is empty while the chain runs through.
Business test: create an anomaly record, see whether it can be traced to the source material, and check the fields, dates, and signatures of the admission plan, filing rules, and admission roster.
- In the node, check the selected knowledge base collections and their vector models, open the search parameter panel, and check the values item by item.
- Run a test with a question that has no matching materials, confirm that the citation array is empty while the output chain continues, and separately record the array length and the
quoteMaxTokenbudget.