What this category's data looks like
This category's data looks like this: Adult college entrance exam registration and admission management involves three core types of materials: registration forms, care bonus-point materials, and admission rosters. The registration form is filled out by the candidate and initially reviewed by the registration point; its fields include name, ID number, application level, subject category, photo, and signature confirmation column, and its update cadence advances with registration batches. Care bonus-point materials are submitted by the candidate and verified by the review department; their fields include bonus-point item, certificate number, issuance date, reviewer signature, and receipt. The admission roster is generated by the admissions department; its fields include candidate number, admitted major, admission date, and responsible person's signature. When these three types of materials enter this feature, the registration form serves as the source of identity and application information, care bonus-point materials serve as evidence of eligibility and dates, and the admission roster serves as the basis for results and signatures, jointly supporting exception tracing and manual review.
Configuration and implementation checks
Configuration and implementation checks: This link is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, outputting the referenced historical message range and answer constraints. The exception list and review conclusions are then completed by the model. Memory turns control how many previous rounds of dialogue can be referenced at most when answering; if the value is too small, prior context cannot be used, and if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Registration form | Name, ID number, application level, and subject category must be compared item by item with the care bonus-point materials and admission roster; dates and signature columns must not be blank | Retrieve the scanned original registration form, check the fields and signatures, record inconsistent items and annotate the source file, and check the reference scope of messages and variables under chatId |
| Care bonus-point materials | The bonus-point item, certificate number, and issuance date must be consistent with what is filled in on the registration form, and the reviewer signature and receipt must be complete | Compare the certificate number and issuance date, check the review signature and receipt, list any missing item in the exception list, and check the reference scope of messages and variables under chatId |
| Admission roster | The candidate number, admitted major, and admission date must correspond to the registration form and care bonus-point materials, and the responsible person's signature must be complete | Check the candidate number on the roster against the registration form, check the admission date and signature, trace discrepancies back to the original materials, and check the reference scope of messages and variables under chatId |
| messages | In continuous follow-up questions, the second round must carry forward the reference from the first round; the referenced historical message range is determined by the memory turns | Run a trial with two consecutive question rounds and check the reference scope of messages and variables under chatId |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same candidate's name or candidate number does not match between the registration form and the admission roster. Cause: The two entries were made at different times, versions were not synchronized, and a cross-material check step is missing.
- Symptom: During review, no corresponding receipt can be found for the certificate number and issuance date of the care bonus-point materials. Cause: The receipt was not archived after the materials were submitted, the review signature column is blank, and the traceability chain is broken.
- Symptom: In continuous follow-up questions, the second question uses a reference but the answer does not address it, or responses become slower and consumption rises. Cause: The memory turns value does not match the prior context range, bringing in irrelevant content.
How to verify the setup
How to verify the setup: Feature acceptance: use two consecutive follow-up question rounds, see whether the second question carries forward the reference from the first question, and check the reference scope of messages and variables under chatId.
Business test: create an exception record, see whether it can be traced to the source material, and confirm that the fields, dates, and signatures of the registration form, care bonus-point materials, and admission roster are traceable.
- In the application settings, check the current value of memory turns, match it with the prior context range required by the question, and compare the usage records of two runs.
- Run a trial with two consecutive question rounds, check whether the second round carries forward the reference, and verify that the opening message is not treated as prior context.