What this category's data looks like
University laboratory safety grading and classification materials mainly consist of laboratory grading and classification tables, hazard source lists, and safety responsibility statements. Multilingual versions are often submitted in batches by departments and safety management offices, and the update cadence rolls forward with institutional revisions, hazard source changes, and responsible personnel adjustments. The grading and classification table carries the laboratory level, hazard source category, and control level; the hazard source list records the product name, quantity, storage location, and responsible person; the safety responsibility statement reflects the scope of responsibility, signature, and receipt. When the three materials enter the document parsing and chunking stage, their roles differ: the grading and classification table serves as the grading basis, the hazard source list serves as the item source, and the responsibility statement serves as the responsibility and sign-off evidence. Multilingual materials and terminology processing require the same term to be consistent throughout the entire text and the translated name to be able to refer back to the original text. Therefore, after parsing and chunking, fields and language clues need to be retained for subsequent retrieval and comparison draft generation.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by parsing and training tasks (server-side tasks), outputting data rows and index status (parsed, indexing, indexed). The unified terminology table and comparison draft are completed next by retrieval and subsequent processing. After parsing is completed, parsing and chunking are immediately persisted as visible data rows and bound to a unique data identifier. The index transitions through three states, and data pending indexing does not participate in recall.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Laboratory grading and classification table | Fields, dates, and signatures must match the hazard source list and safety responsibility statement | Check the laboratory name, level, date, and signature in the grading and classification table, then compare them item by item with the hazard source list and responsibility statement, and check whether the data row status is parsed, indexing, or indexed |
| Hazard source list | The name, quantity, and date of the same record must match across the two materials | Extract three terms and the corresponding hazard source entries, check how the name, quantity, and date are written in the two materials, and record the impact of chunkSize and chunkSplitter on chunk boundaries |
| Safety responsibility statement | The scope of responsibility, signature, and receipt must be complete and version-synchronized | Check whether the signature and receipt of the responsibility statement are complete, check whether the version is synchronized with the grading and classification table, and confirm that the training mode corresponding to trainingType is consistent with the index status |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same hazard source do not match between the grading and classification table and the hazard source list. Cause: Multilingual materials are submitted in batches, fields and terms are not unified, and versions are not synchronized.
- Phenomenon: The safety responsibility statement lacks a signature or receipt, and the scope of responsibility cannot be traced. Cause: The material circulation step is not closed-loop, and signatures and receipts are not updated together with the version.
- Phenomenon: Newly uploaded materials cannot be found. Cause: The data row is in parsed or indexing status, and data pending indexing does not participate in recall; successful parsing does not mean retrieval will definitely hit.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: Upload one material and observe the data row status transitions and the coverage scope of the rebuild task. After upload, check whether the data row is immediately persisted as a visible data row and bound to a unique data identifier, and observe the status going from parsed to indexing to indexed; when switching models, confirm that the rebuild only covers data whose indexing has been completed, and data pending indexing does not participate in the rebuild.
Business test: Extract three terms and check whether their writing is consistent throughout the entire text, and check that the translated names can refer back to the original text; at the same time, record the number of items in the citation array and the tokens budget of the cited text, and do not compare the two for equality.
- Open the data row to check the status, confirm that it is in one of the three states and consistent with the interface display; check the identifiers of the file record and the data row separately, and confirm that the identities of the two can be distinguished.
- Check the data rows covered by the rebuild task, and confirm that it only covers data whose indexing has been completed; directly edit or delete data rows whose training failed, to avoid leaving empty data rows.