What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the journal three-stage review and three-proofreading and editorial quality scenario. Materials include three-stage review forms, proofs, and proofreading records. Sources are process files generated at each stage of the editorial workflow, and the update cadence accumulates version by version as review rounds progress. Three-stage review forms carry the fields, dates, and signatures of initial review, re-review, and final review; proofs carry layout and text comparison traces; proofreading records carry successive corrections and receipts. When materials enter model access and configuration, three-stage review forms provide terminology provenance and review-round basis, proofs provide the actual written form of terminology on the layout, and proofreading records provide version clues for successive changes. Multilingual materials and terminology processing require the same term to be consistent throughout the entire text and translated names to be traceable back to the source text. Therefore, the three types of materials must be aligned by review round and version before entering the generation process for the unified terminology table and comparison draft, and finally delivered for external release.
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 dialogue and retrieval using that model. Configuration only determines whether the call succeeds and which model identifier is returned; it does not determine whether personnel can read knowledge base materials.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Three-stage review form | Fields, dates, and signatures must correspond item by item with the proofreading records; the same review round must not have two sets of names or quantities | Compare the review round names, dates, and signature columns of the three-stage review form and the proofreading records, and check whether maxContext and maxTokens match the bound language model |
| Proof | The terminology written form on the layout must be consistent with the unified terminology table, and translated names must be traceable back to the source text | Extract the written forms of three terms in the proof, check whether quoteMaxToken matches the tokens of the quoted text, and record the array length separately |
| Proofreading record | Versions of successive corrections must be synchronized, and entries missing signatures or receipts must be completed | Check the version numbers and receipts of the proofreading records, and check whether the value of toolChoice in the retrieval step corresponds to the bound index model |
| Model type | Corresponds to the step to be used; check the type label in the model configuration | In the model configuration, check whether the type labels for language, index, rerank, speech synthesis, and speech recognition are consistent with the step |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, or date of the same review round does not match between the three-stage review form and the proofreading records. Cause: The two materials are updated separately and are not aligned by review round and version before entering terminology table generation.
- Symptom: The proof has been changed but the proofreading records are not synchronized, and the terminology written form is inconsistent. Cause: Versions are not synchronized, old proofs and new records are mixed, and translated names cannot be traced back to the source text.
- Symptom: The three-stage review form or proofreading records lack signatures or receipts. Cause: Process nodes are not closed-loop, and materials enter the configuration and retrieval steps in an incomplete state.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: run one dialogue and one retrieval, check whether the model identifier in the response is consistent with the name listed in the documentation, and check the model name returned by the channel.
Business test: sample three terms and check whether their written forms are consistent throughout the entire text, and confirm that translated names can be traced back to the source text.
- Check the channel configuration and key source, confirm that the channel is consistent with the connected service, and when authentication fails, check the key first and then the binding.
- Compare the model name returned by the channel with the model identifier listed in the documentation, and after changing models, recheck whether the answer style and retrieval results change abruptly.