What this category's data looks like
The undergraduate program setup and dynamic adjustment materials consist of three categories: program setup application forms, talent cultivation plans, and expert review opinions. The program setup application form records the program name, code, length of schooling, degree-granting category, application date, and college seal; the talent cultivation plan records the cultivation objectives, course structure, credits and class hours, and revision date; the expert review opinions record the review conclusion, list of experts, signatures, and receipt date. The materials are updated by academic year or application batch, and for the same program, the name, number of courses, total credits, and dates in the application form and the cultivation plan must be aligned item by item. When the three categories of materials are used in multi-turn dialogue and prompt functions, the application form and cultivation plan serve as the primary basis for model retrieval and citation, while the expert review opinions serve as a conclusive attachment for supplementary explanation. Authorized access and external services require that visitor identity match the visible scope; when access is opened to parents or higher-level authorities, unauthorized content must remain invisible.
Configuration and implementation checks
This loop is executed by the memory turn count and prompt configuration in the application settings, which output the reference historical message range and response constraints. The externally accessible entry points and authorization scope are determined by the publishing service and file permissions. The model only processes filtered materials, while the publishing service and file permissions handle identity and file authentication, and the model answers accordingly.
| Object | Judgment | Verification Action |
|---|---|---|
| Program Setup Application Form | Whether the program name, code, program duration, degree category, application date, and school seal are consistent with the talent cultivation plan | Check the current memory turn count value in the application settings, retrieve the application form and cultivation plan, and compare item by item the name, quantity, date, and signature fields |
| Talent Cultivation Plan | Whether the cultivation objectives, course structure, credits and class hours, and revision date correspond to the conclusions of the expert demonstration opinions | Run a trial with two consecutive questions: the first question points to a certain program, and the second uses a referential follow-up to ask about the number of courses. Check whether the answer carries forward the preceding context and verify the material dates |
| Expert Demonstration Opinions | Whether the demonstration conclusions, expert list, signatures, and receipt dates are complete and synchronized with the application form batch | Compare the usage records of two runs, check the usage changes after adjusting the turn count, and simultaneously verify whether the signatures and receipts of the demonstration opinions have any missing items |
| Application Settings Memory Turn Count | Whether it matches the preceding context range required by the question. If the value is too small, the preceding context cannot be used; if too large, irrelevant content is introduced | Check the current value in the application settings, and observe the historical message range in conjunction with the length of the messages array and the session records associated with chatId |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: For the same program, the name, number of courses, and total credits do not match between the application form and the curriculum plan. Cause: The two documents were filled out separately and were not cross-checked against records from the same batch.
- Phenomenon: The signature or receipt for the expert review opinion is missing, yet the review conclusion has already been included in the external response. Cause: When filing the materials, the completeness of signatures and receipts was not checked, and the versions were not synchronized.
- Phenomenon: In the second question, when pronouns are used, the answer does not address the question, and responses become slower with higher consumption. Cause: The number of memory turns is too large, bringing in irrelevant history, or the opening message is treated as prior context.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: Run two consecutive follow-up questions to see whether the second question correctly resolves the references from the first question, and verify whether the historical message range corresponding to messages and chatId matches the configured memory turn count.
Business test: Access once with a restricted identity to see whether the visible scope matches the configuration, and ensure unauthorized content is not visible.
- In the application settings, check the current value of the memory turn count and confirm that it matches the preceding context range required by the question.
- Run a trial with two consecutive questions and check whether the second round correctly resolves the references from the first round.