What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the student disciplinary action and appeal handling category; materials include three types: disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements. Disciplinary fact materials record the course of conduct, time and place, and evidence list; disciplinary decision documents state the type of disciplinary action, the clauses relied upon, the effective date, and the seal; appeal statements include the appeal request, reasons, submission date, and receipt. The three types of materials play different roles when entering the knowledge base retrieval and recall function: disciplinary fact materials and disciplinary decision documents are recalled as the basis for facts and decisions, while appeal statements are recalled as procedural materials, used to verify the correspondence between the disciplinary action and the appeal. Materials are updated in batches, with a new version synchronized after each disciplinary decision or acceptance of an appeal. Field characteristics center on names, quantities, dates, signatures, and receipts, and the same record should remain consistent across different materials.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate chunks and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, re-rank, filter, and limit trimming). The externally available entry points and authorization scope are then completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Names, quantities, dates, and signatures are complete, and consistent with the corresponding records in the disciplinary decision documents | In the knowledge base search test, switch searchMode, run one retrieval each with synonymous questions, and check the names, quantities, and dates in the candidate chunks |
| Disciplinary decision documents | The type of disciplinary action, clauses relied upon, effective date, and seal are complete, and synchronized with the version of the disciplinary fact materials | Compare the order of the top few candidates before and after enabling usingReRank, and confirm that the disciplinary decision document chunks rank stably and that key paragraphs are complete |
| Appeal statements | The appeal request, reasons, submission date, and receipt are complete, and consistent with the corresponding records in the disciplinary decision documents | Check the number of candidate items and the similarity score, record the array length, and separately verify whether the key paragraphs are retained in the quoted text after tokens and limit trimming |
| External entry points and authorization scope | The visitor's identity matches the visible scope, and unauthorized content is not visible | Access once with a restricted identity, check whether the candidate chunks fall only within the authorized scope, and record the number of returned candidate items and scores |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name or quantity of the same record does not match between the disciplinary fact materials and the disciplinary decision documents. Cause: The two materials are entered separately, without field-level verification and version synchronization for the same record.
- Symptom: The appeal statement lacks a signature or receipt but still enters the retrieval candidates. Cause: The signature and receipt fields are not validated when the materials are archived, and retrieval recalls by text without distinguishing procedural completeness.
- Symptom: The same question cannot be recalled when rephrased, and although there are many candidates, none of the top-ranked ones are relevant. Cause: The retrieval mode does not match the material form, re-ranking is not enabled, or similarity filtering is too strict.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare the candidates and similarity scores, then toggle usingReRank on and off to observe the ranking of the top few; record the number of candidate items and scores, count quoted items by array length, and verify quoted text tokens separately.
Business test: access once with a restricted identity, check whether the visible scope matches the setting, and confirm that unauthorized content is not visible.
- In the knowledge base search test, switch
searchMode, run one synonymous question each for the disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements, and record the number of candidate items and scores. - Run once with
usingReRankenabled and once disabled, compare the order of the top few candidates, and check whether the key paragraphs are retained in the quoted text afterlimittrimming.