What this category's data looks like
The materials of primary and secondary school admissions organizations fall into three categories: admission plans, application material checklists, and admission lists. Admission plans contain school district scope, time nodes, and batch arrangements, with fields mainly consisting of dates and signatures; application material checklists list required items such as household registration, property, and student status, with fields including name, quantity, number of copies, and signature fields; admission lists contain student names, numbers, admission batches, publicity dates, and review signatures. When these three types of materials enter the knowledge base retrieval node, each serves as a citable original source: plans answer policy criteria, checklists answer material requirements, and lists answer admission results. The update rhythm advances with the admissions season: plans are released first, checklists follow, and lists are archived after publicity. Each revision produces a new version, while old versions remain in the knowledge base for traceability. The field characteristic is that the same record appears repeatedly across multiple materials; names, quantities, dates, signatures, and receipts need to correspond item by item, and when versions are not synchronized, discrepancies in criteria are likely to appear between cited fragments.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the citation output of the knowledge base retrieval node, which outputs an array of cited content, each item containing an original text fragment and a source identifier, and the length may be 0. The handover-ready deployment status and operation records are completed subsequently by AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work. The citation array only carries original text fragments and sources; it does not handle discrepancy comparison or ledger generation.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Admission plan | Whether the school district scope, time nodes, batch arrangements, dates, and signatures are consistent with the application material checklist and admission list | Open the citation marker to trace back to the original plan text, verify dates and signatures; use responseData (non-streaming module results returned with detailed output enabled) to view the return structure of this round, and record the number of citations and source identifiers |
| Application material checklist | Whether the material names, quantities, number of copies, and signature fields correspond to the plan requirements and the list receipts | Compare checklist items with plan clauses item by item, and check whether the names and quantities of the same material match in the two original texts; verify the source fields in quoteList |
| Admission list | Whether student names, numbers, batches, publicity dates, and review signatures are consistent with the plan and checklist | Compare the original list text with the plan batches, and check dates and signature fields; when versions are not synchronized, use the latest version of the original text as the standard and record discrepancies |
| Citation content output | The number of returned items matches the hit materials; being empty is also normal, and the chain continues to run through | Run a test with a question that has no matching materials, and see that the array is empty while the chain continues; the number of citations is the array length, quoteMaxToken is the content budget, and the two are not compared for equality |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name or number of the same student does not match between the admission list and the application material checklist. Cause: The two materials were revised separately, versions were not synchronized, and the cited fragments each point to old original texts.
- Symptom: The application date in the plan is inconsistent with the receipt date in the checklist, and the signature field is missing. Cause: During material handover, signatures and receipts were not checked item by item, and the old version was not archived.
- Symptom: The answer has content but the citation array is empty, or the cited fragments do not match the original text. Cause: This round did not hit materials, or it hit another version; an empty array is a normal output and does not equal retrieval failure.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance for this feature: ask a question with an original-text basis, and check whether the citation array and markers can trace back to the original text; then ask a question with no matching materials, and confirm that the array is empty while the chain runs through.
Business testing: check once item by item according to the handover form, and see which record is missing; check whether the version, connection, and task record are consistent, and record missing items in the operation record.
- In the node, check whether the selected knowledge base collections and their vector models are the same, and open the search parameter panel to check the values item by item.
- Run a test with a question that has no matching materials, confirm that the citation array is empty while the chain continues; then open the citation markers to compare with the source documents, and record the number of citations and the
quoteMaxTokenbudget.