What this category's data looks like
The filing forms, evaluation specifications, and candidate rosters for enterprise independent skill talent evaluation are the main materials that enter the multilingual materials and terminology processing function. The filing form contains the evaluation agency, occupation name, level, and date; the evaluation specification contains assessment methods, scoring elements, and terminology definitions; the roster contains candidate names, ID numbers, and signatures. The materials come from internal declarations and filing receipts, are updated by batch, and versions often run in parallel. After entering this function, the filing form provides terminology objects and effective dates, the evaluation specification provides terminology definitions and translation-name bases, and the roster provides personnel fields and signature receipts. The fields and dates of the three must be aligned; if signatures or receipts are missing, the terminology table cannot be finalized.
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 table 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, and different steps bind different model types.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise evaluation filing form | Fields, dates, and signatures must be consistent with the evaluation specification | Check the occupation name, level, filing date, and signature receipt against the specification version number |
| Evaluation specification | Terminology definitions and translation names must be traceable back to the source text | Check terminology entries, definitions, and version dates, and confirm that the wording is consistent throughout |
| Candidate roster | Names, quantities, and dates must match the filing form | Check the number of people, ID numbers, dates, and signatures; if signatures or receipts are missing, return it |
| Model configuration | Model types must correspond to the steps in which they are used | Check type labels, channel and key sources, and model identifiers; run a conversation and a retrieval to see the responses |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The names, quantities, and dates of the same record do not match between the filing form and the roster. Cause: The two materials are updated separately, and fields and signature receipts were not checked against the same batch.
- Symptom: After the evaluation specification is revised, the terminology table still uses the old translation names. Cause: The version was not synchronized, the comparison draft did not mark the effective date, and the old definitions are still in the retrieval results.
- Symptom: Retrieval reports an indexing-model-related error, or the answer style changes abruptly after switching models. Cause: The model type does not match the step, and the model identifier is inconsistent with the channel response.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: run one conversation and one retrieval, check the model identifier in the response, and check the values of maxContext, maxTokens, and quoteMaxToken and the tokens of the quoted text; record the number of items in the quote array separately, and do not compare it for equality with the quote budget.
Business test: sample three terms and check whether the wording is consistent throughout.
- In the model configuration, check the type labels, channel and key sources, and model identifiers against the model name returned by the channel.
- Check the fields, dates, and signature receipts of the filing form, evaluation specification, and roster by batch; if the versions are not synchronized or signatures are missing, return them.