What this category's data looks like
This category's data includes program setup filing forms, talent demand justification, and faculty and equipment lists. Fields cover program name, program length, planned enrollment, justification date, equipment quantity, signatures and seals, and receipts. Materials are often drafted separately by academic affairs offices, secondary colleges, and industry enterprises, and updates roll forward with application batches and correction notices. When entering the multilingual materials and terminology processing stage, the filing form is the primary terminology source, the talent demand justification provides industry terminology and job titles, and the faculty and equipment list provides professional titles, equipment names, and units of measurement; together they generate a unified terminology glossary and comparison draft, ensuring the same term is consistent throughout the text and translated names can be traced back to the source text.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the server-side model channel configuration, outputting model binding relationships and channel responses. The unified terminology glossary and comparison draft are then completed by subsequent AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work. Models are divided into five categories: language, indexing, reranking, speech synthesis, and speech recognition. Different stages bind different model types, and type labels must be checked in the model configuration.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup filing form | Fields include program name, program length, planned enrollment, and signature date; the primary terminology source must be consistent with the justification draft | Check that the model name returned by the channel matches the name listed in the document, and confirm that the language model is used for dialogue and the indexing model is used for retrieval |
| Talent demand justification | Job titles and industry terminology must be traceable back to the original text of the filing form; the justification date and signature must not be missing | Compare against the model name returned by the channel, check whether the reranking model is bound to the retrieval stage, and avoid retrieval errors related to the indexing model |
| Faculty and equipment list | Professional titles, equipment names, and units of measurement must match between the two materials in name, quantity, and date | Check the channel configuration and key source, confirm that the language model and indexing model are bound separately, and record the tokens and array count of the referenced text |
| Unified terminology glossary and comparison draft | The same term must be written consistently throughout the text, translated names must be traceable back to the source text, and the version must be synchronized with the receipt | Sample three terms to check whether their writing is consistent throughout the text, and check whether maxContext, maxTokens, and quoteMaxToken match the stage |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the same program name is written differently in the filing form and the justification draft. Cause: the two materials were drafted by different people, terminology was not unified, and versions were not synchronized.
- Symptom: equipment quantity and planned enrollment do not match between the two materials. Cause: after the list was updated, it was not written back to the filing form, and the date and signature lacked a receipt.
- Symptom: retrieval reports indexing model-related errors or authentication failures. Cause: the channel and key are not consistent with the connected service, and the model type label does not match the stage.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: run one dialogue and one retrieval, check the model identifiers in the responses, confirm that the language model and indexing model are bound separately, and check whether maxContext, maxTokens, and quoteMaxToken match the stage.
Business test: sample three terms to check whether their writing is consistent throughout the text, and check whether the translated names can be traced back to the source text.
- Check the type labels in the model configuration, and confirm that the channel and key are consistent with the connected service.
- Compare the model name returned by the channel with the name listed in the document, and check the model binding relationships.