What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on the primary and secondary school timetable and after-school service scheduling scenario. The materials include the master timetable, teacher assignment table, after-school service program table, and accompanying signed receipts. The master timetable lists courses, venues, and time slots by week and class; the teacher assignment table lists classes, subjects, and periods by teacher; the after-school service program table lists participating students, teachers, cycles, and fee basis by program. The three types of materials have different update rhythms: the master timetable changes with the start of the semester and schedule adjustments, the assignment table changes with personnel and division-of-labor adjustments, and the program table rolls with registration and withdrawal. When the materials enter knowledge base retrieval, each plays a different role: the master timetable provides the class and time-slot skeleton, the assignment table provides the teacher-subject correspondence, and the program table provides the after-school service participation scope. For external authorization, the scope visible to parents or superiors must match their identity, and unauthorized access must not be visible. Field characteristics include dates, periods, signatures, and receipt status, and retrieval must preserve key verbatim fragments.
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, re-rank, filter, and upper-limit trimming). "Externally available entry points and authorization scope" are completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Master timetable | Fields include class, date, period, venue, and signature; the name, quantity, and date of the same record in the assignment table or program table must be consistent | In the search test, use class and date as clues to retrieve, and check whether the candidate fragments cover the fields and signature; switch searchMode to compare semantic, full-text, and hybrid results |
| Teacher assignment table | Fields include teacher, subject, class, period, and signature; the version must be synchronized with the master timetable, and missing signature or receipt is deemed not effective | Use teacher and subject as clues to retrieve, and see whether candidates include both semantic and full-text sources; enable usingReRank to compare the ordering of the top few results |
| After-school service program table | Fields include program, participating students, teacher, cycle, and receipt; when the name, quantity, and date of the same record in the two materials do not match, the signed receipt prevails | Use program name and cycle as clues to retrieve, and record the number of candidates and scores; adjust similarity to observe the key verbatim fragments retained after filtering |
| Authorized access scope | The visitor's identity matches the visible scope, and unauthorized access is not visible; the external entry point and authorization scope are generated by subsequent nodes or manually | Access once with a restricted identity to see whether the visible scope matches the setting; check the tokens budget of the cited text, and record the array count separately |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name or date of the same student in the master timetable and the program table do not match. Cause: the two materials are maintained separately, versions are not synchronized, and there is no unified receipt check.
- Symptom: the teacher assignment table has been adjusted, but the master timetable still shows the original period. Cause: the update rhythms differ, changes are not synchronized to all materials, and signatures are missing.
- Symptom: the same question cannot be recalled when rephrased, or there are many candidates but the ones ranked first are all irrelevant. Cause: the retrieval mode does not match the material form, re-rank is not enabled, or similarity filtering is too strict.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: test once each with synonym-rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle re-rank to see the ordering of the top few results; at the same time switch searchMode, adjust similarity and usingReRank, and record the number of candidates and scores.
Business test: access once with a restricted identity to see whether the visible scope matches the setting.
- In the knowledge base search test, switch
searchMode, compare semantic, full-text, and hybrid recall candidates, and confirm that after multi-path merging both types of sources are included. - Enable
usingReRankto compare the ordering of the top few results, adjustsimilarityto observe the tokens budget of the cited text after filtering, and record the array count separately.