What this category's data looks like
In the graduate admissions re-examination and admission scenario, material sources include re-examination plans, candidate score tables, transfer lists, and multilingual reference drafts. The update cadence is concentrated around the re-examination period and the transfer window, and fields involve candidate number, name, preliminary and re-examination scores, transfer preferences, dates, and signature columns. During multilingual materials and terminology processing, the re-examination plan serves as the original source of rule and process terminology, the candidate score table and transfer list serve as the cross-check for record-type fields such as names, quantities, and dates, and the multilingual reference draft serves as the verification entry point for translated names referring back to the original text. After materials enter the document parsing and chunking feature, they each exist as file records and data rows. Parsing and chunking are used to form searchable data rows, and the finished terminology glossary and reference draft are completed by retrieval and subsequent processing.
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). "Unified terminology glossary and reference draft" is then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing. After parsing is complete, parsing and chunking are immediately persisted as visible data rows and bound to a unique data identifier. The index transitions through three states, and data pending indexing does not participate in recall.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Re-examination plan | Whether the fields, dates, and signatures match the transfer list | Check the dates and signature columns in the plan against the corresponding records in the transfer list, and check whether the data row status is parsed, indexing, or indexed |
| Candidate score table | Whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent across the two materials | Check the file record and data row separately, sample three terms to check whether their spelling is consistent throughout the document, and record the values of chunkSize and chunkSplitter |
| Transfer list | Whether the version is synchronized, and whether signatures or receipts are missing | Check the list version and receipt, confirm that the rebuild task only covers data that has completed indexing, and check the processing mode corresponding to trainingType |
| Multilingual reference draft | Whether translated names can refer back to the original text, and whether the same term is consistent throughout the document | Sample three terms to check whether their spelling is consistent throughout the document, check the terminology mapping between the reference draft and the original text, and confirm that the data row status is consistent with the interface display |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the re-examination plan and the transfer list. Cause: The versions of the two materials are not synchronized, or the field entry conventions are inconsistent.
- Symptom: Newly uploaded materials cannot be found. Cause: The data row is still in the pending-indexing state, and the retrieval layer is naturally isolated, so it has not entered the recall scope.
- Symptom: After a training failure, empty data rows remain, or signatures and receipts are missing. Cause: The training interruption leaves orphan data behind, and the material handover step has not completed signature confirmation.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: Upload one material, observe the data row status transitions and the coverage scope of the rebuild task, confirm that the status is parsed, indexing, or indexed, and check the processing records corresponding to chunkSize, chunkSplitter, and trainingType.
Business test: Sample three terms to check whether their spelling is consistent throughout the document, check whether translated names can refer back to the original text, and confirm that the same term is consistent throughout the document.
- Open the data row to check the status, and confirm that it is in one of the three states and is consistent with the interface display.
- Check the file record and data row separately, confirm that the identifiers of the file and the data row are distinguishable, and check whether the data rows covered by the rebuild task include only data that has completed indexing.