What this category's data looks like
Materials in the student disciplinary and appeal handling category include three types: disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements, each with fields, dates, and signatures. Disciplinary fact materials record the description of conduct, time of occurrence, and witness signature, and serve as the basis for the disciplinary decision; disciplinary decision documents state the type of disciplinary action, the clauses relied upon, the effective date, and the delivery receipt; appeal statements contain the appellant, the requested matters, the submission date, and the acceptance signature. When the three types of materials enter the knowledge base retrieval node, each is cited as an independent source, and the cited content array returns the original text fragments and source identifiers according to the matched materials. In terms of update cadence, disciplinary decision documents are synchronized with delivery, appeal statements circulate with acceptance, and disciplinary fact materials may be revised before archiving. Field characteristics are concentrated in four items: name, quantity, date, and signature. The same record often appears in two materials with inconsistent name spellings, differing dates, missing signatures, or an unreturned receipt.
Configuration and implementation checks
The citation output of the knowledge base retrieval node outputs only the cited content array, each entry containing an original text fragment and a source identifier, and its length may be 0. The externally facing entry point and authorization scope must be handled subsequently by an AI node, code node, or manual process. The cited content is output as an array, and its length may be 0; even if no content is found, the output chain still completes.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Whether the conduct description, date of occurrence, and witness signature are consistent with what is stated in the disciplinary decision document | Take one disciplinary fact material and the corresponding disciplinary decision document, compare name, quantity, date, and signature item by item, and record discrepancies; check whether the citation array points back to the original text of that material |
| Disciplinary decision documents | Whether the type of disciplinary action, the clauses relied upon, the effective date, and the delivery receipt are consistent with what is stated in the appeal statement | Take one disciplinary decision document and the corresponding appeal statement, compare the type of disciplinary action and the date, and check the receipt signature; inspect the number of citation entries and the quoteList field in responseData (non-streaming module results returned with detailed output enabled) |
| Appeal statements | Whether the appellant, the requested matters, the submission date, and the acceptance signature are consistent with what is stated in the disciplinary decision document | Take one appeal statement and the corresponding disciplinary decision document, compare the appellant's name and the date, and check the acceptance signature; confirm that the cited fragments can point back to the original paragraphs |
| Cited content output | The number of returned entries is consistent with the matched materials; an empty result is also normal | Run a trial with a question that matches no materials, and see that the output is empty while the chain continues; record the array length separately from the quoteMaxToken budget |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the disciplinary fact material and the disciplinary decision document. Cause: the two materials are entered separately, no field-level comparison is performed, and each is cited separately when cited.
- Symptom: the appeal statement version is not synchronized, the acceptance signature is missing, or the receipt is not returned. Cause: the material is revised during circulation, the knowledge base is not updated with the latest version, and citations still point to old fragments.
- Symptom: there are no citation superscripts in the answer, or the cited fragments do not match the original text. Cause: the corresponding material was not matched in this round, or a different material was matched; the match must be verified first, then the trimming.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: ask a question with an original-text basis, and check whether the citation array and superscripts can point back to the original text; then ask a question with no matching materials, confirm that the array is empty while the chain completes, and record the array length and the quoteMaxToken budget, without comparing the two for equality.
Business test: access once with a restricted identity, and see whether the visible scope matches the setting and whether unauthorized content is invisible.
- Check whether the associated knowledge base uses the same vector model, open the search parameter panel, and verify the values item by item
- Run a trial with a question that matches no materials, and see that the output is empty while the chain continues; record the array length