What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of degree conferral and certificate information reporting. The materials come from three types of archived documents: degree application forms, thesis review forms, and defense resolutions. They are updated by batch, and the fields include name, student ID, thesis title, defense date, resolution conclusion, and signature fields. In multilingual materials and terminology handling, the three types of materials each play a different role: the degree application form provides the applicant's identity and discipline information, the thesis review form provides review comments and reviewer information, and the defense resolution provides the voting result and committee signatures. The names, quantities, and dates of the same record across the three materials must be mutually traceable, and translated names and source terminology must be consistent throughout. After entering multi-turn dialogue and prompt configuration, the model generates a unified terminology list and a bilingual comparison draft based on this, which is then submitted for external release.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the memory turn count and prompt configuration in the application settings, and outputs the historical message range and answer constraints for reference. The unified terminology list and bilingual comparison draft are then completed by the model. The memory turn count controls how many previous dialogue turns can be referenced at most when answering. If the value is too small, the preceding text cannot be used; if the value is too large, irrelevant content is brought in and consumption increases.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Degree application form | The name, student ID, discipline, and date fields must correspond item by item with the thesis review form and defense resolution, and signature fields must not be blank | Check the current memory turn count value in the application settings, run a trial with two consecutive questions, and check whether the second round can carry forward the references from the first round |
| Thesis review form | The reviewer, review conclusion, and review date must be consistent with the voting result and committee list in the defense resolution, and the receipt must not be missing | Use messages and variables as the input identifiers for the bilingual comparison draft, and sample three terms to check whether their wording is consistent throughout |
| Defense resolution | The resolution conclusion, defense date, and committee signatures must match the degree application form and thesis review form, and the version must be synchronized | Use chatId to distinguish sessions of different batches, compare the usage records of two runs, and confirm that consumption changes accordingly after adjusting the turn count |
| Unified terminology list and bilingual comparison draft | The same term is consistent throughout, translated names can be traced back to the source text, and the wording of the three sampled terms is consistent | Before external release, review the correspondence between the terminology list and the bilingual comparison draft according to the historical range in messages |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name and date of the same record do not match between the degree application form and the defense resolution. Cause: The versions of the two materials are not synchronized, and the terminology list does not uniformly trace back to the source text.
- Symptom: The thesis review form lacks the reviewer's signature or receipt, and the defense resolution lacks committee signatures. Cause: The signature fields were not checked during archiving, and no completeness check was done before submission.
- Symptom: When references are used in the second question, the answer does not address the question, and responses become slower with increased consumption. Cause: The memory turn count is too large and brings in irrelevant content, or too small and cannot use the preceding text.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Ask two consecutive follow-up questions, see whether the second question carries forward the references from the first question, and check the presentation of chatId, messages, and variables in the historical range.
Business test: Sample three terms to check whether their wording is consistent throughout, and confirm that translated names can be traced back to the source text.
- Check the current memory turn count value in the application settings and match it with the preceding text range required by the question.
- Run a trial with two consecutive questions, compare the usage records of the two runs, and confirm that consumption changes accordingly after adjusting the turn count.