What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the student disciplinary action and appeal processing scenario. Materials include three types: disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements. Disciplinary fact materials record the course of conduct, time, place, persons involved, and evidence list, and serve as the basis for subsequent disciplinary action; disciplinary decision documents cite the fact materials and give the type of disciplinary action, the applicable provisions, the effective date, and the issuer's signature; appeal statements are submitted by the student concerned and state the appeal request, reasons, the corresponding disciplinary decision document number, and the receipt acknowledgment. The three types of materials play different roles when entering the unified terminology table and the comparison draft process: fact materials provide the original expressions and proper nouns, disciplinary decision documents provide the characterization terms and provision names, and appeal statements provide the appellant's restatement of the same terminology. Field characteristics are concentrated in dates, signatures, numbers, quantities, and names. The update rhythm advances with the disciplinary stages: fact materials come first, decision documents follow, and appeal statements are submitted within the time limit after service. Multilingual processing must ensure that the same terminology is written consistently across the three types of materials and that the translated names can refer back to the source text.
Configuration and implementation checks
The server-side model channel configuration only outputs the model binding relationships and channel responses; the unified terminology table and comparison draft must be handled by dialogue and retrieval. Models are divided into five categories: language, indexing, reranking, speech synthesis, and speech recognition. Different stages bind different model types.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Names, quantities, dates, and signatures must be consistent with the corresponding records in the disciplinary decision documents and appeal statements; the same record must not be written differently in two places | Compare the same record across the three materials and check whether names, quantities, dates, and signatures can refer back to the source text |
| Disciplinary decision documents | Characterization terms and provision names must be consistent with the wording in the unified terminology table, and the issuer's signature and effective date must be complete | Extract three terms and check whether their wording is consistent throughout the document, and check whether signatures and acknowledgments are complete |
| Appeal statements | The disciplinary decision document number, date, and terminology cited in the appeal request must be consistent with the decision document, and the receipt acknowledgment must not be missing | Check whether the number and date match, and check whether the receipt and signature are retained |
| Model configuration | Model types correspond to the stages in which they are to be used, and model identifiers are consistent with the names listed in the documentation | Check the type labels in the model configuration, compare them with the model names returned by the channel, and check maxContext, maxTokens, and quoteMaxToken |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, or date of the same record does not match between the disciplinary fact materials and the disciplinary decision document. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, and no terminology and field comparison was performed.
- Symptom: The versions of the disciplinary decision document and the appeal statement are not synchronized, and the cited provisions or numbers are inconsistent. Cause: After revision, replacements were not unified, and the old version is still in circulation.
- Symptom: The disciplinary decision document lacks the issuer's signature, and the appeal statement lacks the receipt acknowledgment. Cause: The service and archiving stages did not check item by item against the field list.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: run one dialogue and one retrieval, check the model identifiers in the responses, and check whether maxContext, maxTokens, and quoteMaxToken are consistent with the model configuration.
Business testing: extract three terms and check whether their wording is consistent throughout the document, check whether the translated names can refer back to the source text, and separately record the number of items in the citation array.
- In the model configuration, check whether the model type labels correspond to the stages they are connected to, and check the model identifiers against the model names returned by the channel.
- Check names, quantities, dates, and signatures item by item according to disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements, and confirm version synchronization and retention of acknowledgments.