What this category's data looks like
Graduate training process management covers materials such as training plans, proposal reports, and mid-term assessment forms. Sources are scattered across supervisors, schools, and administrative departments, and the update cadence advances with semester milestones. Fields include name, student ID, course name, credit count, date, and signature field. In multilingual materials and terminology processing scenarios, the training plan plays the role of terminology anchoring for courses and stages, the proposal report carries the mapping of topic directions and reference translations, and the mid-term assessment form records progress evaluation and signature receipts. After the three types of materials enter document parsing and chunking, each forms retrievable data rows. Terminology wording and date signatures need to remain consistent in cross-material comparison, avoiding the same record having mismatched names, quantities, or dates across different materials, or blocked external release due to unsynchronized versions or missing signature receipts.
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 table and comparison draft are 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, and data pending indexing does not participate in recall.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Training plan | Course names, credit counts, dates, and signature fields must correspond item by item with the proposal report and mid-term assessment form. The name and quantity of the same record must not differ in two places. | After uploading the training plan, check whether the data row status is parsed, then use chunkSize and chunkSplitter to check whether chunk boundaries cut off terminology and dates. |
| Proposal report | Topic directions and reference translation names must be able to refer back to the original text mutually with the course terminology in the training plan. When versions are not synchronized, the latest persisted data row prevails. | Check the identity identifiers of the file record and the data row separately, confirm that the file and the data row are each distinguishable, then check the index status under the processing mode corresponding to trainingType. |
| Mid-term assessment form | Progress evaluation, signature, and receipt fields must be complete. The date and quantity of the same record in the two materials must not mismatch. | Check the data rows covered by the rebuild task, confirm that only data with completed indexing is covered, and that data pending indexing does not participate in the rebuild chain. |
| Unified terminology table and comparison draft | The same term must be written consistently throughout, translation names must be able to refer back to the original text, and the three extracted terms must be written consistently throughout. | Open the data row and check whether the status is indexed, then extract three terms and check whether their wording is consistent throughout. |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The course name, credit count, or date of the same record in the training plan and mid-term assessment form do not match. Cause: The two materials are parsed and persisted separately, and terminology and quantities are not aligned in the unified terminology table first.
- Symptom: The proposal report and training plan versions are not synchronized, and old-version terminology is still hit by retrieval. Cause: Data pending indexing is isolated at the retrieval layer, but old-version data rows with completed indexing are not rebuilt with the new version.
- Symptom: The mid-term assessment form lacks a signature or receipt and is returned during external release. Cause: Parsing and chunking only output data rows and index status; the completeness of signature receipts must be checked by retrieval and subsequent processing.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: Upload one material, check whether the data row status transitions through parsed, indexing, and indexed, and check whether the data rows covered by the rebuild task contain only data with completed indexing.
Business test: Extract three terms and check whether their wording is consistent throughout, and confirm that the translation names of the same term in the training plan, proposal report, and mid-term assessment form can refer back to the original text.
- Open the data row and check the status, confirm it is consistent with the interface display, and that the identities of the file record and the data row are distinguishable.
- Check the data rows covered by the rebuild task, and confirm that after changing models, only data with completed indexing is rebuilt, and data pending indexing does not participate.