What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on the category of investigation and handling of academic misconduct reports. The material sources are three types: report materials, investigation reports, and expert appraisal opinions. When entering the authorized access and external services function, report materials play the role of the clue entry point, investigation reports play the role of process conclusions, and expert appraisal opinions play the role of professional judgment. Field characteristics include material name, record count, date, signature, and receipt. The update rhythm advances with the investigation stage: after a report is accepted, report materials come first; after the investigation ends, an investigation report is formed; after the appraisal is completed, expert appraisal opinions are added. A common verification dimension is whether the name, count, and date of the same record are consistent between the report materials and the investigation report, whether versions are synchronized, and whether signatures or receipts are complete. During external services, parents or superiors can only see materials within the authorized scope; unauthorized content is not visible.
Configuration and implementation checks
The memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings only output the reference historical message range and answer constraints; the externally available entry points and authorization scope must be handled next by the model. This link is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, outputting the reference historical message range and answer constraints. The externally available entry points and authorization scope are determined by the publishing service and file permissions; the model only processes filtered materials, while the publishing service and file permissions are responsible for actual release.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | Matches the preceding context range required for continuous follow-up questions on report materials | Check the current value in the application settings, and run a trial with two consecutive question turns to observe whether the second turn can carry forward the references from the first turn |
| Report materials | Name, count, and date are consistent with the investigation report, and versions are synchronized | Compare field by field the same record in the two materials, and check whether signatures and receipts are complete |
| Investigation report | The conclusion date does not conflict with the date of the expert appraisal opinion, and signatures are complete | Check the corresponding paragraphs of the investigation report and the expert appraisal opinion in date order, and confirm that versions are not misaligned |
| Expert appraisal opinion | The appraisal opinion matches the record name and count in the report materials | Spot-check the records cited in the appraisal opinion, trace back to the report materials and investigation report, and confirm that the fields in the three materials are consistent |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, count, and date of the same record do not match between the report materials and the investigation report. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, without field-level comparison and version synchronization.
- Phenomenon: The expert appraisal opinion has been updated, but external services still display the old version of the investigation report. Cause: Versions were not synchronized, and the publishing service did not refresh the visible scope according to the latest materials.
- Phenomenon: The investigation report lacks a signature or receipt, and the materials seen by parents or superiors are incomplete. Cause: The signature and receipt fields were not validated when the materials were archived, and the authorization scope was released according to the old status.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: use two consecutive follow-up questions. The first question mentions a certain record in the report materials, and the second question continues with a reference. See whether the answer carries forward the reference from the first question; at the same time, check whether the actual values of messages, chatId, and variables in the application settings match the historical message range.
Business test: access once with a restricted identity, and see whether the visible scope matches the setting, with unauthorized content not visible.
- Check the memory turns value in the application settings, and run a trial with two consecutive question turns to confirm that the second turn can correctly carry forward the references from the first turn.
- Compare item by item the name, count, date, and signature receipts of the report materials, investigation report, and expert appraisal opinion, and confirm that versions are synchronized and the externally visible scope matches the identity.