What this category's data looks like
This page addresses materials for graduate training process management, covering three core document types: training plans, proposal reports, and mid-term assessment forms. The training plan defines course and credit requirements, the proposal report records the basis for topic selection and review comments, and the mid-term assessment form carries stage results and supervisor signatures. When these materials enter the authorized access and external services function, each plays a different role: the training plan serves as the baseline for the visible scope of the entry point, while the proposal report and mid-term assessment form are used to compare the name, quantity, date, and signature of the same record. The material update cadence is centralized submission and revision each semester, with versions based on college archiving. Field characteristics include student name, student ID, supervisor, course name, credits, proposal date, mid-term date, assessment conclusion, signature, and receipt. During external services, parents or superiors can only see material fragments within the authorized scope, and unauthorized content is not visible.
Configuration and implementation checks
This link is executed by the citation output of the knowledge base retrieval node, which outputs an array of citation content, each item containing the original text fragment and source identifier, and the length can be 0. "Externally available entry points and authorized scope" is subsequently completed by AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Training plan | Fields contain course name, credits, proposal date, and signature, and must be consistent with the record of the same name in the proposal report | In the node, check the selected collections and their vector models, and confirm that knowledge bases with the same vector model are associated |
| Proposal report | When the name, quantity, and date do not match the mid-term assessment form, first verify the materials hit in this round before judging trimming | Run a test with a question that has no matching materials, and see that the citation content output is empty while the chain continues |
| Mid-term assessment form | Signatures and receipts are complete, the version is synchronized with college archiving, and citation fragments can point back to the original paragraphs | Open the citation markers in the conversation, and check the original text fragments and source identifiers one by one against the source documents |
| Citation content output | The number of returned items is consistent with the materials hit; being empty is also normal; quoteMaxToken is the citation content budget, and the number of items is recorded separately | Open the search parameter panel and check item by item, record the array length, and view responseData (non-streaming module results returned with detailed output enabled) and quoteList separately |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the training plan and the proposal report. Cause: The two materials are submitted separately, without field-level comparison and version synchronization.
- Symptom: The mid-term assessment form lacks a signature or receipt, but the externally visible scope still shows it as complete. Cause: The authorized scope was not narrowed according to signature status, and unauthorized content was not intercepted.
- Symptom: There are no citation markers in the answer, and the citation fragments do not match the original text. Cause: Without first verifying whether this round hit and which material was hit, the issue was directly attributed to length trimming.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: Ask a question with original text evidence, and check whether the citation content array and markers can point back to the original text; then ask a question with no matching materials, confirm that the array is empty while the chain runs through, 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 unauthorized content is not visible.
- Check whether the associated knowledge bases use the same vector model, and confirm in the node that the selected collections and their vector models are consistent.
- Open the search parameter panel and check the values item by item, then run a test with a no-match question to confirm that the citation content output is empty while the chain continues.