What this category's data looks like
This page addresses school moral education and homeroom teacher work scenarios. Material sources include themed class meeting plans, student comprehensive quality records, home visit records, as well as the unified terminology list and comparison draft required for external release. These materials are usually updated by semester or by month, and fields involve activity themes, time and location, participants, evaluation points, parent opinions, signatures, and receipts. When entering multilingual materials and terminology processing, the themed class meeting plans provide the original context of terms, the student comprehensive quality records and home visit records provide how the same term is written in different documents, and the unified terminology list and comparison draft assume the responsibility of having the translated name refer back to the original text. The roles of the materials differ: plans and records are sources for term extraction, while the terminology list and comparison draft are the consistency master copy before release. The three types of fields—dates, quantities, and signatures—are the most prone to name or value discrepancies during cross-material circulation. Multi-turn dialogue and prompt configuration are needed to carry term wording already confirmed in the preceding text into subsequent follow-up questions, reducing repeated explanations.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, and the output references the historical message range and answer constraints. The "unified terminology list and comparison draft" is then completed by the model. Memory turns control how many previous dialogue turns can be referenced at most when answering. If the number of turns is too small, the preceding text cannot be used; if too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Themed class meeting plan | The same activity name, date, and number of participants are written consistently throughout the whole text and can refer back to the original text | Use two consecutive rounds of questions to verify: in the first round, ask for the activity name in the plan; in the second round, use a referential follow-up to ask how the same activity is written in other materials, and check whether the historical range in messages covers the preceding text |
| Student comprehensive quality record | Evaluation item names, quantities, dates, and signature fields do not appear in two different ways in the comparison draft | Extract three terms from the record and compare their wording throughout the whole text one by one; check whether the term variables passed in variables correspond to the record fields |
| Home visit record | The home visit date, student name, parent opinion, and receipt signature are consistent in the terminology list and comparison draft | Check whether the name, quantity, and date of the same home visit record match in the two materials; confirm that the preceding terms in the conversation corresponding to chatId have not been rewritten |
| Unified terminology list and comparison draft | The same term is consistent throughout the whole text, the translated name can refer back to the original text, the versions are synchronized, and no signature or receipt is missing | Sample three terms and check their wording throughout the whole text; check the version number and signature field, and confirm that the comparison draft and terminology list come from the same update round |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The date or quantity of the same home visit record does not match between the terminology list and the comparison draft. Cause: The versions of the two materials were not synchronized, and the one changed later was not written back to the other.
- Phenomenon: The activity name in the themed class meeting plan appears with two translated names in the comparison draft. Cause: In multi-turn dialogue, the preceding term was not carried forward by the subsequent follow-up, and the model regenerated it.
- Phenomenon: The student comprehensive quality record lacks a signature or receipt but is still treated as a releasable master copy. Cause: The signature and receipt fields were not included in the scope of terminology list verification.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: two consecutive follow-up rounds. In the first round, ask how a certain term is written in the themed class meeting plan; in the second round, use a referential follow-up to ask how the same term is written in the comparison draft, and see whether the second question carries forward the reference from the first question.
Business test: sample three terms to check whether their wording is consistent throughout the whole text, and check whether the translated names can refer back to the original text.
- In the application settings, check the current value of memory turns and confirm that it matches the range of preceding text required by the question; run a trial with two consecutive rounds of questions and check whether the second round can correctly carry forward the reference from the first round.
- Compare the usage records of two runs to confirm that the run consumption changes accordingly after adjusting the number of turns; check whether the opening message is treated as preceding text, and verify the conversation scope corresponding to the three identifiers
messages,variables, andchatId.