What this category's data looks like
This category's data mainly consists of observation records, area plans, material placement lists, activity objectives, and reflection-to-next-week plans. It comes from daily class care and education and from kindergarten teaching research. The update rhythm rolls forward with weekly plans and theme progression. Field characteristics include activity name, area, material quantity, observation points, and translated-name correspondence. In the multilingual materials and terminology handling scenario, observation records and area plans play the role of mutual verification between objectives and observations, material placement lists play the role of quantity and referential traceability, reflection-to-next-week plans play the role of plan updates, and activity objectives play the role of achievement determination. After materials enter document parsing and chunking, they first form visible data rows, then enter the three-state index flow, for retrieval and subsequent processing to produce a unified terminology table and comparison draft.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by parsing and training tasks (server-side tasks), outputting data rows and index states (parsed, indexing, indexed). The "unified terminology table and comparison draft" is then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing. After parsing is completed, parsing and chunking are immediately persisted as visible data rows and bound to a unique data identifier. The index flows through three states. Data pending indexing does not participate in recall. Changing models only rebuilds data whose indexing is already completed.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Observation records and area plans | The same term is consistent throughout the whole text, translated names can refer back to the original text, and objectives correspond to observations | Check the file records and data rows separately, check that translated names refer back to the original text, and confirm that the data row is in one of the three states and is consistent with the interface display |
| Material placement lists | Material quantities are consistent with the criteria for activity objective achievement, and terminology wording does not vary by area | Open the data row to check the status, check material quantities and objective achievement, and check the chunking and training records related to chunkSize, chunkSplitter, and trainingType |
| Reflection-to-next-week plans | The plan has been updated and is synchronized with observation records and objective achievement, and terminology table references are consistent | Look at the data rows covered by the rebuild task, confirm that only data with completed indexing is covered, and sample three terms to check whether their wording is consistent throughout the whole text |
| Unified terminology table and comparison draft | The same term is consistent throughout the whole text, and translated names can refer back to the original text | Sample three terms to check whether their wording is consistent throughout the whole text, and check that the identifiers of file records and data rows are distinguishable |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: insufficient materials cause area plans and observation records to fail to correspond. Cause: material placement quantities and activity objectives were not updated synchronously, and the terminology table did not refer back to the original text.
- Phenomenon: objectives do not match observations, and translated names are inconsistent before and after. Cause: after parsing and chunking, the three-state flow was not checked, and data pending indexing was mistakenly treated as already recalled.
- Phenomenon: the plan was not updated, and the reflection-to-next-week plan still uses old terminology. Cause: rebuilding only targets data with completed indexing, and old data rows did not re-enter the index chain.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: upload one set of materials, observe the data row status flow and the coverage scope of the rebuild task, and confirm that the three states are parsed, indexing, and indexed, and that data pending indexing does not participate in recall.
Business test: sample three terms to check whether their wording is consistent throughout the whole text, and check that the identities of file records and data rows are distinguishable.
- Open the data row to check the status, confirm that it is in one of the three states and is consistent with the interface display, and check the file records and data rows separately.
- Look at the data rows covered by the rebuild task, confirm that only data with completed indexing is covered, and check the records of
chunkSize,chunkSplitter, andtrainingType.