What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the vocational school student internship management scenario. Materials come from three types of text: internship agreements, internship plans, and internship logs, including multilingual versions and mixed terminology usage. The update cadence advances with internship batches: agreements come out first, plans follow, and logs are backfilled weekly. Signature and receipt pages are often added in scanned form. When materials enter the parsing and chunking function, agreements play the role of terminology baseline, plans play the role of field comparison, and logs play the role of date and quantity verification; within the same batch, the three must maintain consistent terminology wording, translated names can refer back to the original text, and fields and signature columns can be compared item by item.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the parsing and training task (server-side task), outputting data rows and index status (parsed, indexing, indexed). "Unified terminology table and comparison draft" is then completed by retrieval and subsequent processing.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Internship agreement | Whether fields, dates, and signatures are complete, and whether terminology wording is consistent across multilingual versions | Open the data row to check the status, and check whether chunkSize and chunkSplitter preserve complete fields when splitting the signature page |
| Internship plan | Whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record match between the agreement and the plan | Check the file record and the data row separately, and confirm the correspondence between trainingType and the index status parsed / indexing / indexed |
| Internship log | Whether the date and quantity are consistent with the agreement and plan, and whether receipts are missing | Sample three terms to check their wording throughout the document, and check whether the data rows covered by the rebuild task contain only data with completed indexing |
| File and data row | The identities of the file record and the data row are distinguished separately | Check the file record and the data row separately, and confirm that the unique data identifier is consistent with the three-state index flow |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the agreement and the plan. Cause: Multilingual versions were not updated synchronously, and the terminology table and comparison draft were not reissued with the batch.
- Symptom: After log backfilling, signatures or receipts are missing, and agreement scans were not added. Cause: Materials were uploaded in batches, indexing was not triggered after parsing was persisted, and the retrieval layer isolates data pending indexing.
- Symptom: Rebuild takes abnormally long after changing models. Cause: The rebuild scope was not limited to data with completed indexing, and data pending indexing was mistakenly included in the rebuild chain.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: Upload one set of materials, watch the data row status flow through parsed / indexing / indexed, and check that the rebuild task covers only data rows with completed indexing.
Business test: Sample three terms to check whether their wording is consistent throughout the document, whether translated names can refer back to the original text, and record the tokens and array counts of the quoted text separately.
- Open the data row to check the status, confirm that the three states are consistent with the interface display, and check the file record and the data row separately.
- View the data rows covered by the rebuild task, confirm that it targets only data with completed indexing, and that data pending indexing does not participate in recall.