What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of credit management for primary and secondary school teacher training. The materials include three types: training notices, credit recognition forms, and attendance rosters. Training notices provide the course name, class hours, training dates, and signature/seal requirements; credit recognition forms carry the teacher's name, ID document number, course name, recognized credits, recognition date, and review signature; attendance rosters record registrants, their schools, attendance dates, and attendance receipts. These materials are updated by semester or project batch, and within the same batch the three documents—notice, recognition form, and roster—often have unsynchronized versions. The key fields are teacher name, course name, credit amount, date, and signature. When terminology involves multilingual materials, a unified translated name and a back-reference to the original text must also be provided. When the materials enter the multi-turn dialogue and prompt features, historical messages are used to keep the wording of the same term consistent, and the prompt constrains the answer scope, based on which the model produces a unified terminology table and a comparison draft.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, outputting the referenced historical message range and answer constraints. The unified terminology table and comparison draft are then completed by the model. The memory turns control how many previous dialogue turns can be referenced at most when answering; too small a value fails to use the preceding text, while too large a value brings in irrelevant content and increases consumption.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Memory turns | Matches the range of preceding text required by the question | Check the current value in the application settings, and run a trial with two consecutive follow-up questions |
| Training notice | Course name, class hours, training dates, and signature/seal requirements are consistent across all materials | Sample three terms and compare whether the wording is the same in the notice, recognition form, and roster |
| Credit recognition form | Teacher name, course name, recognized credits, recognition date, and review signature are complete | Check whether the name, amount, and date of the same record match between the recognition form and the attendance roster |
| Attendance roster | Registrants, their schools, attendance dates, and attendance receipts are complete | Check whether the versions of the roster, notice, and recognition form are synchronized, and mark places missing a signature or receipt |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the same teacher's name is written differently in the recognition form and the attendance roster. Cause: the two materials were entered separately, without sharing a unified terminology table and comparison draft.
- Symptom: the credit amount and training date for the same course do not match between the notice and the recognition form. Cause: versions were not synchronized, and materials from an old batch were mixed into a new batch.
- Symptom: the recognition form lacks a review signature, and the attendance roster lacks an attendance receipt. Cause: before release, items were not checked one by one against the signature and receipt fields.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: with two consecutive follow-up questions, see whether the second question carries on the reference from the first; keep the preceding text in messages, use chatId to distinguish sessions, and if necessary pass terminology constraints via variables.
Business test: sample three terms to check whether the wording is consistent throughout, and verify whether the translated name can back-reference the original text.
- Check the memory turns value in the application settings, compare the usage records of two runs, and confirm that usage changes accordingly after adjusting the turns.
- Run a trial with two consecutive interrogative sentences, check whether the second turn gives an irrelevant answer when using a reference, and confirm that the opening message is not treated as preceding text.