What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the student disciplinary action and appeal handling category, focusing on the deployment, operations, and application handover stage. There are three types of materials: disciplinary fact materials (including the parties involved, time, location, description of behavior, evidence list, and handler's signature), the disciplinary decision document (including the type of disciplinary action, the clauses relied upon, the effective date, and the delivery receipt), and the appeal statement (including the appeal request, reasons, submission date, and receipt signature). The three types of materials play different roles in the function: disciplinary fact materials are the source of facts, the disciplinary decision document is the source of the decision, and the appeal statement is the source of review. After materials enter the knowledge base, they are updated by batch, and each batch carries a version number and update date. In terms of field characteristics, names, quantities, dates, signatures, and receipts are the keys to alignment across materials, and the same record should remain consistent across different materials. The update rhythm follows the nodes of the disciplinary process, with the issuance of the decision document, the acceptance of the appeal, and the review conclusion each forming one version record.
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 entry containing the original text fragment and 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.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | The party's name, date of behavior, number of evidence items, and handler's signature should be consistent in the decision document and the appeal statement | Open the citation marker, compare against the original paragraphs, verify names, quantities, dates, and signatures item by item, and record quoteList |
| Disciplinary decision document | The type of disciplinary action, clauses relied upon, effective date, and delivery receipt should be consistent in the appeal statement | Verify the two materials, the decision document and the appeal statement, check whether the version number and update date are synchronized, and record responseData (non-streaming module results returned with detailed output enabled) |
| Appeal statement | The appeal request, reasons, submission date, and receipt signature should connect with the timeline of the fact materials | Verify item by item according to the handover sheet, confirm which signature or receipt is missing, and separately record the number of entries in the citation array |
| Cited content output | The number of returned entries is consistent with the matched materials, and being empty is also normal | Run a test with a question that has no matching materials, see that the output is empty while the chain continues, and verify that quoteMaxToken is the content budget |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the disciplinary fact materials and the disciplinary decision document. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, were not aligned to the same batch version, and the fields were not compared item by item.
- Phenomenon: The version of the disciplinary decision document was not synchronized, and the appeal statement cites old clauses. Cause: The update rhythm follows process nodes, but the version number and update date were not passed along with the materials.
- Phenomenon: The appeal statement lacks a receipt signature or the disciplinary decision document lacks a delivery receipt. Cause: The handover sheet did not verify signatures and receipts item by item, and completeness was not checked when the materials entered the knowledge base.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: ask a question with original-text support, and check whether the citation array and citation markers can point 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. Verify that quoteMaxToken is the citation content budget, record the number of array entries separately, and do not compare the two for equality.
Business test: verify once item by item according to the handover sheet, and see which item is missing from the record.
- Open the search parameter panel and verify item by item, confirm that the values are consistent with those set in the knowledge base retrieval section, and verify the selected collections and their vector models.
- Open the citation markers in the conversation, compare against the source documents, confirm item by item that the cited fragments can point back to the original paragraphs, and record the number of entries in the citation array.