What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of daily life management in kindergarten childcare. The materials come from daily life schedules, morning and afternoon check records, child health observation records, as well as multilingual comparison drafts and terminology notes. Daily life schedules are updated weekly or monthly, with fields including activity name, start and end time, responsible teacher, and venue; morning and afternoon check records are generated daily, with fields including child's name, body temperature, throat and hand observations, abnormal handling, inspector, and signature; child health observation records are filled in by event or time period, with fields including observation date, description of performance, water intake and meals, nap, bowel movement, handling, and parent receipt. When these materials enter the parsing and chunking stage, each plays a different role: schedules provide structured time and activity fields, morning and afternoon check records provide high-frequency date and signature fields, health observation records provide descriptive text and receipt fields, and multilingual comparison drafts provide terminology translations and basis for referring back to the source text.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by parsing and training tasks (server-side tasks), outputting data rows and index status (parsed, indexing, indexed). The "unified terminology table and comparison drafts" are then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing. After parsing is completed, parsed chunks are immediately stored as visible data rows and bound to a unique data identifier. Indexing flows through three states. Data pending indexing does not participate in recall. When changing models, only data with completed indexing is rebuilt.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Daily life schedule | Activity name, start and end time, responsible teacher, venue, and date fields are complete; the translation of the same activity in the multilingual comparison draft can refer back to the source text | Separately check the file records and data rows, view whether the data row status is parsed / indexing / indexed, and spot-check whether the chunks produced by chunkSize and chunkSplitter cover the complete activity |
| Morning and afternoon check records | Child's name, body temperature, check date, inspector, and signature fields are complete; the name, quantity, and date of the same record match across the two materials | Open the data rows to check whether the status is consistent with the interface display, sample three records by date to compare signatures and receipts, and confirm there are no missing signatures or receipts |
| Child health observation records | Observation date, description of performance, meals and nap, handling, and parent receipt fields are complete; the version is synchronized with the externally published draft | Check whether the data rows covered by the rebuild task only include data with completed indexing, verify the progress of the processing mode corresponding to trainingType, and confirm that data pending indexing has not been rebuilt |
| Multilingual terminology comparison draft | The same term is written consistently throughout, the translation can refer back to the source text, and dates and quantities do not conflict between the two materials | Sample three terms to check whether their writing is consistent throughout, and verify that the identities of the file records and data rows are distinguishable |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same morning and afternoon check record do not match between the schedule and the observation record. Cause: Multiple material versions are not synchronized, and after parsing they are not merged under the same data identifier.
- Symptom: The externally published draft lacks signatures or receipts, and terminology translations are inconsistent. Cause: Materials are updated at different paces, and the terminology table is not rebuilt in sync with the records.
- Symptom: Newly uploaded materials cannot be found, and failed training leaves empty data rows. Cause: Successful parsing does not equal retrieval hits, data pending indexing does not participate in recall, and failed data is not edited or deleted in time.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: Upload one material, observe the data row status transitions and the coverage scope of the rebuild task, confirm the status is parsed / indexing / indexed, and that the rebuild only covers data with completed indexing.
Business test: Sample three terms to check whether their writing is consistent throughout, verify that translations can refer back to the source text, and confirm that dates, quantities, signatures, and receipts match between the two materials.
- Separately check the file records and data rows, open the data rows to check whether the status is consistent with the interface display, and record the current values of
chunkSize,chunkSplitter, andtrainingType. - Check the data rows covered by the rebuild task, confirm that it only targets data with completed indexing, that data pending indexing and data being indexed do not participate in the rebuild, and that failed data is directly edited or deleted.