What this category's data looks like
This page addresses multilingual materials and terminology processing in the formulation of talent cultivation programs for vocational colleges, involving three types of materials: talent cultivation programs, course standards, and job competency analysis tables. These materials come from collaborative drafting by academic affairs offices, secondary schools/departments, and professional teaching and research offices, and their update cadence changes with program adjustments, semester revisions, and external release milestones. Talent cultivation programs state training objectives, course structure, and graduation requirements; course standards specify course nature, credit hours and credits, and assessment methods; job competency analysis tables correspond to job clusters, competency items, and supporting courses. In terms of fields, names, quantities, dates, and signatures must be checked, and the same terminology must remain consistent throughout the entire text, with translated names able to refer back to the source text. When materials enter multi-turn dialogue and prompt features, their roles differ: talent cultivation programs provide the overall framework and terminology baseline, course standards provide course-level terminology and credit-hour conventions, and job competency analysis tables provide job competency terminology and correspondence relationships. Together, the three support the generation of a unified terminology glossary and a comparison draft.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turn count and prompt configuration in the application settings, and the output references the historical message range and answer constraints. The "unified terminology glossary and comparison draft" is then completed by the model. External entry points and authorization are handled by the publishing service and file permissions; this configuration does not generate access entry points, nor does it perform identity or file authentication.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Talent cultivation program | Whether the name, quantity, date, and signature are consistent with the course standards and job competency analysis table | In the application settings, check the memory turn count value, and use two consecutive follow-up questions to check whether the preceding references are correctly carried forward, and view the historical range in messages |
| Course standards | Whether the course name, credit hours and credits, and assessment methods are consistent with the corresponding records in the talent cultivation program | Compare the two materials item by item for names and quantities, confirm version synchronization, check whether signatures and receipts are complete, and if necessary check the session corresponding to chatId |
| Job competency analysis table | Whether the job name, competency items, and supporting courses are consistent with the talent cultivation program and course standards | Extract three terms and check whether their usage is consistent throughout the entire text, confirm that translated names can refer back to the source text, ensure dates and signatures are not missing, and record the terminology conventions in variables |
| Unified terminology glossary and comparison draft | The same terminology is consistent throughout the entire text, and translated names can refer back to the source text | Extract three terms and check whether their usage is consistent throughout the entire text, and verify that the tokens of the quoted text and the number of array entries are recorded separately |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, or date of the same record does not match between the talent cultivation program and the course standards. Cause: Multiple materials were revised separately, without cross-material field comparison and version synchronization.
- Phenomenon: The job competency analysis table has been updated, but the course standards still use the old terminology and credit hours. Cause: Versions were not synchronized, lacking a unified update cadence and receipt confirmation.
- Phenomenon: The externally released draft lacks signatures or receipts, and terminology usage is inconsistent. Cause: Before release, a spot check of three terms for consistency throughout the entire text was not performed, nor were signature and receipt completeness checked.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Use two consecutive follow-up questions to see whether the second question carries forward the references from the first question, and confirm that the memory turn count value matches the preceding context range required by the question.
Business test: Extract three terms and check whether their usage is consistent throughout the entire text, and confirm that translated names can refer back to the source text.
- In the application settings, check the current value of the memory turn count, run a trial with two consecutive question sentences, and observe whether the second round carries forward the references from the first round.
- Compare the usage records of two runs to confirm that after adjusting the turn count, the run consumption changes accordingly, and check that the opening message is not treated as preceding context.