What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on materials for safety grading and classification of university laboratories. The core categories include three types: laboratory grading and classification tables, hazard source lists, and safety responsibility statements. The laboratory grading and classification table is updated by the Laboratory and Equipment Management Office on an academic-year basis, and its fields include laboratory name, room number, hazard level, basis for classification, date, and signature of the person in charge; the hazard source list is updated by each laboratory's safety officer within one week after a hazard source change, and its fields include hazard source name, category, quantity, storage location, risk level, confirmation date, and signature; the safety responsibility statement is signed by the department and the laboratory person in charge according to the employment term or academic year, and its fields include scope of responsibility, responsible person, signing date, and signatures of both parties. When these three types of materials enter the exception tracing and manual review function, the grading and classification table provides the laboratory identity and level baseline, the hazard source list provides the quantity and location basis for exception comparison, and the safety responsibility statement provides the object for verifying responsibility attribution and signature receipts. Multi-turn dialogue and prompts are responsible for organizing the context of review follow-up questions, based on which the model outputs the exception list and review conclusions, which are finally handed to the person in charge for handling.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, and outputs the historical message range and answer constraints for reference. The "exception list and review conclusions" are 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; if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Laboratory grading and classification table | Item-by-item consistency with the hazard source list on the same laboratory name, room number, hazard level, and date; the signature column must not be empty | Check the current value of memory turns in the application settings, run a trial with two consecutive follow-up questions, check whether the second question inherits the reference from the first question, and record chatId and messages |
| Hazard source list | Matches the grading and classification table on the same hazard source name, quantity, storage location, and confirmation date; the version number and update date are synchronized | Create an exception record, trace it to the original entry in the hazard source list, check the quantity and date, and confirm that the material version referenced in variables is consistent |
| Safety responsibility statement | The responsible person, scope of responsibility, signing date, and receipt are complete, and there is no conflict with the responsibility attribution in the grading and classification table and hazard source list | Compare the signature and receipt of the responsibility statement, check whether the name and date of the same record are consistent in the two types of materials, and mark it as pending review if a signature is missing |
| Exception list and review conclusions | Each exception is supported by the original record, the reviewer's signature is complete, and it can be traced to the source material | Use two consecutive follow-up questions to review the exception item, confirm that the second question inherits the reference from the first question, and output it to the person in charge for handling |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: the name, quantity, and date of the same hazard source do not match between the grading and classification table and the hazard source list. Cause: the two materials have different update rhythms, and cross-table field comparison was not performed.
- Phenomenon: the version of the hazard source list is not synchronized, and the review cites an old entry. Cause: after the material was updated, the reference range was not refreshed in the dialogue context.
- Phenomenon: the safety responsibility statement lacks a signature or receipt, and the exception cannot be assigned to a responsible person. Cause: the signing step was not closed-loop, and the signature column was not verified during review.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: with two consecutive follow-up questions, see whether the second question inherits the reference from the first question; check the value of memory turns in the application settings, record chatId, messages, and variables, and confirm that the historical message range and answer constraints meet expectations.
Business test: create an exception record, see whether it can be traced to the source material, check the fields, dates, and signatures of the grading and classification table, hazard source list, and safety responsibility statement, and output the exception list and review conclusions.
- Check the current value of memory turns in the application settings, run a trial with two consecutive follow-up questions, confirm that the second question inherits the reference from the first question, and compare the usage records of the two runs.
- Check the name, quantity, date, and signature of the grading and classification table, hazard source list, and safety responsibility statement one by one; if inconsistency is found, mark it as pending review and hand it to the person in charge for handling.