What this category's data looks like
University admissions physical examination organizations centrally process three types of materials during the admissions season: physical examination forms, re-examination applications, and restricted major notifications. Sources are submissions from various middle schools and on-site collection, with an update rhythm that rolls with batches. Physical examination form fields include past medical history, color vision, visual acuity, hearing, blood pressure, height and weight, and physician signature and date; re-examination applications include application reason, original conclusion, re-examination items, applicant signature, and acceptance date; restricted major notifications include restricted clauses, corresponding major names, notification date, and candidate receipt signature. When materials enter the multi-turn dialogue and prompt feature, the physical examination form serves as the main record providing baseline fields, the re-examination application serves as the basis for changes used to refer back to the original conclusion, and the restricted major notification serves as the output draft used to check whether major names and dates are consistent with the main record. Within the same batch, the three types of materials must remain comparable in four places: names, quantities, dates, and signatures.
Configuration and implementation checks
This part is executed by the memory turns and prompt configuration in the application settings, outputting the historical message range and answer constraints for reference. The unified terminology table and comparison draft are then completed by the model. The external publishing entry point and file authorization are handled by the publishing service and file permissions; this feature does not generate access entry points, nor does it perform identity or file authentication.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Physical examination form | For the same candidate, the name, physical examination number, and original conclusion date in the physical examination form and re-examination application must be verbatim identical; physician signature and physical examination date must not be blank | Open both materials and compare names and numbers side by side, then check whether the signature field and date field are both filled in; in the dialogue, chatId can be used to locate the same session, and messages can be used to verify the fields referenced earlier |
| Re-examination application | The re-examination items and original conclusion must be able to refer back to the corresponding entry in the physical examination form; the acceptance date must not be earlier than the original physical examination date; the applicant signature and receipt must be complete | Extract three re-examination items, return to the physical examination form to check the wording and date of the same items, and confirm that no version is out of sync; if necessary, use variables to record the batch number to distinguish versions |
| Restricted major notification | The major names, quantities, and notification dates referenced by the restricted clauses must be consistent with the conclusion in the physical examination form; the candidate receipt signature must not be missing | Compare the notification draft with the conclusion in the physical examination form item by item to check major names and dates, and inspect the receipt signature field; sample three terms to check whether the wording is consistent throughout the document |
| Terminology comparison draft | The translation and wording of the same term throughout the document must be unified and must be able to refer back to the corresponding field in the source text; two coexisting wordings must not appear | Search the entire document item by item according to the terminology table, confirm that each term appears in only one wording; record the tokens of the referenced text and the number of array entries, registering the two separately |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name or physical examination number of the same candidate is written differently in the physical examination form and the re-examination application. Cause: The two materials were entered at different stages and were not checked against the source text according to the unified terminology table.
- Phenomenon: The major names referenced in the restricted major notification do not match the conclusion in the physical examination form, and the quantities and dates also differ. Cause: The notification draft was generated based on an old version of the conclusion, and the version was not synchronized.
- Phenomenon: The re-examination application lacks the applicant signature or the restricted major notification lacks the candidate receipt signature. Cause: No signature checkpoint was set in the material circulation process, and the receipt was not archived with the batch.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Run a trial with two consecutive follow-up questions. The first question gives a certain candidate's physical examination conclusion, and the second question uses a reference to ask about the restricted major corresponding to that conclusion, to see whether the second question inherits the reference from the first question; at the same time, check whether the values of chatId, messages, and variables in the session are consistent with the configuration.
Business test: Sample three terms to check whether the wording is consistent throughout the document, and confirm that each translation can refer back to the corresponding field in the source text.
- In the application settings, check the current value of memory turns, match it with the range of prior text required by the question, and run a trial with two consecutive questions to confirm that the second round can correctly inherit the reference from the first round.
- Compare the usage records of two runs to confirm that the run consumption changes accordingly after adjusting the number of turns, and check that the opening message is not treated as prior text.