What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on the degree conferral and certificate information reporting scenario. The materials come from three types of forms—degree application forms, thesis review forms, and defense resolutions—as well as receipts. The degree application form records the applicant's identity, discipline, and proposed degree; the thesis review form carries the review conclusion and date; the defense resolution fixes the voting result and signatures. The update cadence advances with batch reporting, and review forms and resolutions often undergo version replacements due to supplementary signatures and revisions. When the materials enter the multi-turn dialogue and prompt feature, each has a different role: the application form provides identity and degree level, the review form provides the conclusion and date, and the defense resolution provides the voting and signature status. Together, the three support the setting of the visible scope of the external entry point.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turn count and prompt configuration in the application settings, outputting the reference historical message range and answer constraints. The externally available entry point and authorization scope are determined by the publishing service and file permissions, and the model only processes filtered materials. The memory turn count controls how many previous dialogue turns can be referenced at most when answering. If the value is too small, prior context cannot be used; if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Degree application form | Whether the name, discipline, and date are consistent with those in the thesis review form and defense resolution | Check the current value in the application settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions, and compare the usage records of the two runs |
| Thesis review form | Whether the review conclusion, date, and signature match those in the defense resolution | Run a trial with two consecutive questions, using a reference in the second question to carry forward the first, and check whether the answer is off-topic |
| Defense resolution | Whether the signatures and receipts are complete, and whether the version is in sync with the application form | Access once with a restricted identity and see whether the visible scope matches the setting |
| Multi-turn dialogue and prompts | Whether the memory turn count matches the prior context range required by the question | Check the current value in the application settings, and check whether the opening message is treated as prior context |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, discipline, and date for the same applicant do not match between the degree application form and the defense resolution. Cause: The two materials are entered separately, versions are not synchronized, and there is no unified verification step.
- Symptom: The review conclusion and signature status are inconsistent between the thesis review form and the defense resolution. Cause: After a supplementary signature or revision, only one material is updated while the other still retains the old version.
- Symptom: When a reference is used in the second question, the answer is off-topic, responses become slower, and consumption rises. Cause: The memory turn count value does not match the prior context range required by the question, and the opening message is treated as prior context.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: ask two consecutive follow-up questions, see whether the second question carries forward the reference from the first, and check the correspondence of chatId, messages, and variables in the records.
Business test: access once with a restricted identity and see whether the visible scope matches the setting.
- Check the current memory turn count value in the application settings, and confirm that it matches the prior context range required by the question.
- Run a trial with two consecutive questions, compare the usage records of the two runs, and check whether usage changes accordingly after adjusting the turn count.