What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on vocational college program setup filing materials; the core materials include the program setup filing form, talent demand justification, and faculty and equipment list. These materials are usually updated by academic year or application batch, and their fields cover program name, program code, program length, enrollment number, number of teachers, number of equipment units, justification date, signature, and receipt. The program setup filing form provides the basic program fields and approval signature, and is the main record for authorized access; the talent demand justification provides industry research and job demand evidence, and is used to support the reasonableness of the program setup; the faculty and equipment list provides teacher and equipment details, and is used to verify the conditions for running the school. When the three types of materials enter knowledge base retrieval, each participates in recall as an independent fragment; the filing form fragment often serves as the entry anchor, while the justification and list fragments serve as supplementary references. The materials need to keep the same program name, quantities, and dates consistent, and after version synchronization they must be re-ingested to avoid old-version fragments being recalled.
Configuration and implementation checks
The knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test) only outputs candidate fragments and similarity scores (after mode, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming); the externally available entry point and authorization scope must be handled by subsequent nodes or manually. One retrieval consists of question optimization, semantic or full-text or hybrid recall, multi-path merging, rerank secondary sorting, similarity filtering, and reference limit trimming, and only then is the reference content handed to the model obtained.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup filing form | Whether the fields, dates, and signatures are complete, and whether the program name and code are consistent with the justification and list | In the search test, switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, or hybrid, and check whether the candidate fragments hit the key fields and signature page of the filing form |
| Talent demand justification | Whether the justification date, research scope, and signature receipt are from the same batch as the filing form | Test once each with synonymous questions, check the number of candidates and similarity scores, and confirm that the justification fragment and the filing form fragment appear at the same time |
| Faculty and equipment list | Whether the number of teachers and equipment units match the values filled in the filing form, and whether the versions are synchronized | Compare the ranking of the top few items before and after enabling usingReRank, and adjust similarity and limit to observe the tokens and array count of the trimmed reference text |
| External entry point and authorization scope | Whether the visitor identity matches the visible scope, and whether unauthorized access is invisible | Access once with a restricted identity, check whether the returned candidates fall within the authorized scope, and record the number of candidates and scores |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same program has mismatched names or codes in the filing form and the justification. Cause: The two materials were filled in by different personnel without cross-checking, and they are recalled separately during retrieval, causing reference conflicts.
- Symptom: The quantities in the faculty and equipment list are inconsistent with the values filled in the filing form. Cause: After the list was updated, the filing form was not synchronized, and the old-version fragments still remain in the knowledge base, so versions are mixed during recall.
- Symptom: The justification material lacks a signature or receipt, but retrieval still returns candidates. Cause: The signature field was not validated during ingestion, and similarity filtering only matches by text and does not recognize signature status.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: test once each with synonymously rewritten questions, compare the number of candidates and similarity scores, then toggle rerank on and off to see whether the ranking of the top few items changes.
Business test: access once with a restricted identity, and see whether the visible scope matches the setting and whether unauthorized content is invisible.
- In the search test, switch
searchModeto semantic, full-text, and hybrid, and record the number of candidates and similarity scores separately. - Compare the ranking of the top few items before and after enabling
usingReRank, and after adjustingsimilarityandlimit, check the tokens of the reference text, and record the array count separately.