What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on multilingual materials and terminology processing in the context of school moral education and homeroom teacher work. Material sources include themed class meeting plans, student comprehensive quality records, home visit records, as well as multilingual parallel texts of moral education policies and homeroom teacher work manuals. The update cadence is per semester, continuously supplemented as classes are adjusted, activities are carried out, and home visits progress, with version freezes accompanying external release milestones. When these materials enter the document parsing and chunking feature, each plays a different role: themed class meeting plans provide activity flows and terminology context, student comprehensive quality records carry evaluation dimensions and field structures, and home visit records contribute process fields such as time, signatures, and acknowledgments. Multilingual materials need to form retrievable data rows after parsing, providing source-text anchors for the subsequent unified terminology glossary and parallel draft. Field characteristics center on record names, quantities, dates, signatures, and acknowledgments; the same record's wording across different materials must remain traceable 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 glossary and parallel draft" is then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing. After parsing is complete, parsed chunks are immediately persisted as visible data rows and bound to a unique data identifier; the index transitions through three states, data pending indexing does not participate in recall, and changing models only rebuilds data whose indexing is already completed.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Themed class meeting plan | Whether the same class meeting name, activity count, and implementation date are consistent between the plan and the comprehensive quality records, and whether signatures and acknowledgments are complete | Check the name, quantity, and date in the plan and the records separately, and inspect the signature and acknowledgment fields |
| Student comprehensive quality record | Whether the same evaluation dimension name, record count, and date match between the class summary and individual materials, and whether versions are in sync | Compare the field values of the two materials, and check the version number and update time |
| Home visit record | Whether the same student's home visit count, dates, teacher signature, and parent acknowledgment are consistent in the multilingual parallel draft and can be traced back to the source text | Extract three terms and check their wording throughout the entire text, and verify the signature and acknowledgment pages |
| Data rows and index status | The data row is in one of the three states parsed, indexing, indexed and is consistent with the interface display; the rebuild scope only covers data whose indexing is already completed | Open the data row to check the status, view the coverage scope of the rebuild task, and confirm that chunkSize, chunkSplitter, and trainingType correspond to the processing mode |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same record's name, quantity, and date do not match between the class meeting plan and the comprehensive quality records. Cause: After chunking multilingual materials, terminology was not unified, versions were not synchronized, and field values came from different sources.
- Symptom: Home visit records lack signatures or acknowledgments, yet the externally released draft still uses the old version. Cause: The material update cadence is out of step with release milestones, and process fields were not included in the verification scope.
- 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, and confirm that status values only change among parsed, indexing, and indexed, and that rebuilds only target data whose indexing is already completed.
Business test: Extract three terms and check whether their wording is consistent throughout the entire text, verify that translated names can be traced back to the source text, and check whether signatures and acknowledgments are complete.
- Open the data row to check the status, confirm that the file record and the data row have distinguishable identities, and check the file record and the data row separately.
- View the data rows covered by the rebuild task, and confirm that the initial training covers data that is pending indexing and indexing, while rebuilds only cover data whose indexing is already completed.