What this category's data looks like
This page addresses kindergarten home-school co-education communication materials, with sources including class notices, child observation records, parent request registrations, commitment item ledgers, and reporting templates for higher authorities. When these materials enter the knowledge base retrieval and recall function, they play different roles: notices and observation records serve as candidate fragment sources, request registrations and commitment ledgers serve as the basis for determining visible scope and authorized objects, and reporting templates serve as the field skeleton for external entry points. The update cadence rolls daily or weekly, and the field characteristics are time, class, child identifier, item category, response status, and visibility level. Materials are first segmented and indexed, then the external service boundary is determined based on visitor identity and visible scope, and unauthorized content does not enter the candidates.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate fragments and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and upper-limit trimming). The externally available entry points and authorization scope are then completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Class notice materials | Whether commitment items and response times are verifiable in the candidate fragments | In the search test, retrieve with synonymous questions, record the number of candidates and scores, and check searchMode and similarity |
| Child observation records | Whether the child performance description is consistent with the observation records | Switch retrieval modes to compare candidates, and observe changes in the ranking of the top few items before and after enabling usingReRank |
| Parent request registrations | Whether the parent request classification falls into the corresponding candidate fragments | Access once with a restricted identity, and check the visible scope and the quoted text after limit trimming |
| Reporting templates for higher authorities | Whether notice delivery and external fields match the authorization scope | Access with a restricted identity, record the number of candidates, and separately check the token budget of the quoted text |
Three common errors
- Symptom: A parent asks about a commitment item but the corresponding fragment cannot be recalled. Cause: The request was not categorized, or the semantics shifted after question rewriting, and the candidates and scores did not cover that item.
- Symptom: The child performance description in the external reply does not match the observation records. Cause: The expression fragment came from an old record, and reranking and filtering did not place the new record first.
- Symptom: A commitment item has no response record for a long time. Cause: The ledger was not updated, the response time field is missing from the retrieval candidates, and subsequent nodes have no way to generate it.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle reranking on and off to observe the ranking of the top few items.
Business test: access once with a restricted identity to see whether the visible scope matches the settings.
- In the search test, fix the question, record the number of candidates and scores, and switch
searchModeto compare recall differences. - Compare the order of the top few items before and after enabling
usingReRank, and check the tokens and array length of the quoted text afterlimittrimming.