What this category's data looks like
The annual progress and acceptance of research projects involves three types of materials: annual progress reports, mid-term inspection materials, and acceptance reports. The sources are project team submissions and management department archiving, and the update cadence advances according to annual nodes and the mid-term and acceptance stages. Annual progress reports record the year's tasks, indicators, funding, and personnel changes; mid-term inspection materials focus on the completion of stage objectives and explanations of adjustments; acceptance reports summarize full-cycle results, funding final accounts, and signature and seal pages. When these three types of materials enter exception tracing and manual review, they respectively play the roles of original records, process evidence, and final conclusions: annual progress reports provide the annual factual baseline, mid-term inspection materials provide the reference for stage comparison, and acceptance reports provide the basis for the final state and signed receipts. Field characteristics center on project name, number of indicators, start and end dates, responsible person's signature, and unit receipt. The name, quantity, and dates of the same record often appear inconsistent across the three materials, and versions not being synchronized or missing signature receipts also occur from time to time.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, outputting the historical message range and answer constraints to reference. 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, the preceding text cannot be used; if too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Annual progress report | The project name, number of indicators, start and end dates, and responsible person's signature must be aligned item by item with the mid-term inspection materials and acceptance report | Retrieve the original records, check the name, quantity, dates, and signature fields, and compare whether the historical turns referenced in messages cover the same project context |
| Mid-term inspection materials | The completion of stage objectives, explanations of adjustments, and receipt date must be consistent with the annual progress report and acceptance report | Check the version number and receipt date, and confirm whether the preceding references in the session corresponding to chatId point to the same material |
| Acceptance report | Full-cycle results, funding final accounts, and signature and seal pages must be traceable to the annual progress report and mid-term inspection materials | Check the completeness of signatures and receipts, use variables to record the project identifier, and confirm that the name, quantity, and dates of the same record in the three materials have no conflicts |
| Memory turns | Match the range of preceding text required by the question | Check the current value in the application settings, run a trial with two consecutive rounds of questions, and compare the usage records of the two runs |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The same project name is written differently in the annual progress report and the acceptance report, and the quantity and dates also do not match. Cause: The three materials are submitted at different nodes, versions are not synchronized, and there is no unified identifier.
- Phenomenon: The adjustment explanation in the mid-term inspection materials is not written back to the annual progress report, and the indicator definitions conflict at acceptance. Cause: Versions are not synchronized, the reference range of historical turns is insufficient, and the preceding references fail.
- Phenomenon: The acceptance report lacks the responsible person's signature or the unit receipt, and the exception list cannot be closed. Cause: The signature page was not archived with the materials, and the reviewer has no way to check the original records.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Run a trial with two consecutive rounds of follow-up questions. The first question gives the project name and the exception record, and the second question uses a reference to follow up on that record. See whether the second question inherits the reference from the first question; at the same time, check whether the range of historical turns referenced in messages covers the required preceding text.
Business test: Create an exception record and see whether it can be traced back to the source material.
- Check the current value of memory turns in the application settings, and confirm that it matches the range of preceding text required by the question.
- Run a trial with two consecutive rounds of questions, compare the usage records of the two runs, and confirm that consumption changes accordingly after adjusting the number of turns.