What this category's data looks like
This category's data looks like this: Enterprise independent skill talent evaluation involves three types of materials: filing forms, evaluation specifications, and candidate rosters. Fields include name, trade, level, date, and signature. Multilingual versions need to be compared item by item. Filing forms carry institution and occupation information, evaluation specifications define procedures and scoring, and rosters record candidate identity and examination subjects. Materials are updated by batch. The name, quantity, and date of the same record in different files must be consistent. Version synchronization and signed receipts are indispensable. When materials enter knowledge base retrieval, each file participates in recall as an independent source. Candidate snippets retain the original wording and structure, facilitating the subsequent generation of a unified terminology table and comparison draft.
Configuration and implementation checks
Configuration and implementation checks: This step is executed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), outputting candidate snippets and similarity scores (after mode, merge, rerank, filter, and upper limit trimming). The unified terminology table and comparison draft are completed by subsequent nodes or manually.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise evaluation filing form | Whether fields, dates, and signatures are consistent with the evaluation specifications | In the search test, switch searchMode and check the filing form candidate snippets against the corresponding specification entries |
| Evaluation specifications | Whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record match the roster | Compare the top few rankings before and after enabling usingReRank to confirm the recall order of specification clauses |
| Candidate roster | Whether versions are synchronized and signatures or receipts are complete | Adjust the similarity filter threshold and observe changes in the number of roster candidate entries and scores |
| Knowledge base retrieval service | Whether candidate snippets and similarity scores have undergone merge, rerank, filter, and upper limit trimming | Record the number of candidate entries and scores, and separately record the tokens and array length of the cited text |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The same candidate name is written differently in the filing form and the roster. Cause: Multilingual materials have not unified terminology, and versions are not synchronized, causing field misalignment.
- Phenomenon: The date in the evaluation specifications does not match the examination date in the roster. Cause: The two materials are updated at inconsistent rhythms, and cross-file verification has not been done.
- Phenomenon: The filing form lacks a signature or receipt. Cause: The material circulation process is not closed-loop, and the signature page is not updated in sync with the version.
How to verify the setup
How to verify the setup: Acceptance for this feature: test once each with synonymous rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then toggle rerank on and off to see the top few rankings.
Business test: sample three terms and check whether their spelling is consistent throughout the entire document, and whether translated names can refer back to the original text.
- In the search test, switch
searchModeand compare the number of candidate entries and scores across semantic, full-text, and hybrid modes. - Adjust
similarityandlimit, and observe changes in the tokens of the cited text after similarity filtering and citation upper limit trimming.