What this category's data looks like
This category's data looks like this: Undergraduate program setup and dynamic adjustment involves three types of materials: program setup application forms, talent cultivation plans, and expert demonstration opinions. Sources are academic affairs system exports, departmental submissions, and expert review archives, with update cadence advancing along application cycles and annual adjustment nodes. When the three types of materials enter the document parsing and chunking function, their roles differ: the program setup application form provides fields such as program name, code, degree-granting category, and application date; the talent cultivation plan carries long texts such as the curriculum system, credits and class hours, and cultivation objectives; and the expert demonstration opinions record demonstration conclusions, expert lists, and signature receipts. In terms of field characteristics, table fields and body paragraphs are mixed, and the names, quantities, and dates of the same program across different materials need cross-comparison; the completeness of signatures and receipts directly affects material usability. Multilingual materials and terminology processing require that translated names can refer back to the original text, and the terminology glossary and comparison draft must remain consistent throughout the entire document.
Configuration and implementation checks
Configuration and implementation checks: This step is executed by parsing and training tasks (server-side tasks), outputting data rows and index statuses (parsed, indexing, indexed). "Unified terminology glossary 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; data pending indexing does not participate in recall.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup application form | The name, code, degree-granting category, and application date must be aligned item by item with the talent cultivation plan and expert demonstration opinions, and signatures and receipts must be complete | Check whether the program name and code in the form are consistent with the other two materials, check whether the signature column and receipt are complete, and record field and date discrepancies |
| Talent cultivation plan | The curriculum system, credits and class hours, and cultivation objective statements must be consistent with the application form's wording, and the version number and revision date must be synchronized | Compare whether the program name and credit quantity in the plan match the application form, and confirm that when the version is not synchronized, the latest revision date prevails |
| Expert demonstration opinions | The demonstration conclusion, expert list, and signature receipts must correspond to the application form and cultivation plan, and the date must not be earlier than the plan's finalization date | Check whether expert signatures and receipts are missing, and verify whether the demonstration date conflicts with the dates of the other two materials |
| Data rows and index status | It is in one of the three states and consistent with the interface display, and file records and data row identities can be distinguished | Open the data row to check the status, check the file record and data row separately, view the data rows covered by the rebuild task, and confirm the processing modes corresponding to chunkSize, chunkSplitter, and trainingType |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name and quantity of the same program do not match between the application form and the cultivation plan. Cause: The two materials were revised separately, without cross-comparison and version synchronization.
- Symptom: Expert demonstration opinions lack signatures or receipts. Cause: The review process was not closed-loop, and the completeness of the signature column and receipts was not verified during archiving.
- Symptom: Newly uploaded materials cannot be found. Cause: The data row is in parsed or indexing status, data pending indexing does not participate in recall, and you must wait for indexing to complete.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: Upload one material, observe the data row status transitions and the coverage scope of the rebuild task, confirm that after parsing is completed it is immediately persisted as visible data rows, that the status transitions through parsed, indexing, and indexed, that changing the model only rebuilds data whose indexing has completed, and that the data rows covered by the rebuild task are consistent with the interface display.
Business test: Sample three terms and check whether their spelling is consistent throughout the entire document, confirm that translated names can refer back to the original text, and that the same term is written uniformly across different materials.
- Open the data row to check the status, check the file record and data row separately, and confirm that the identifiers can be distinguished and the status is consistent with the interface display.
- View the data rows covered by the rebuild task, and confirm that only data whose indexing has completed is covered, and that data pending indexing does not participate in the rebuild.