What this category's data looks like
This category's data covers three core types of materials: registration forms, care bonus-point materials, and admission rosters. The registration form records the candidate's basic information, application level and subject category, registration serial number, on-site confirmation date, and the handler's signature; the care bonus-point materials contain the bonus item name, supporting document number, review opinion, and reviewer's signature; the admission roster contains the candidate's name, candidate number, admitted major, admission batch, admission date, and the responsible person's signature. In deployment, operations, and application handover, these three types of materials serve as mutual references: the registration form is the baseline for identity and application information, the care bonus-point materials determine the filing score, and the admission roster is the final destination credential. The materials are updated along the three rhythms of registration, review, and admission, and field names, quantities, and dates must remain traceable between any two of them.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the citation output of the knowledge base retrieval node, which outputs an array of citation content, each entry containing the original text snippet 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 itself is not a discrepancy list, ledger, or report.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Registration form | The candidate's name, candidate number, registration serial number, and on-site confirmation date are consistent across the two materials, and the handler's signature and receipt are complete | Retrieve the registration form and admission roster, compare name, candidate number, registration serial number, and date item by item, and check whether the signature and receipt are missing |
| Care bonus-point materials | The bonus item name, supporting document number, review opinion, and reviewer's signature correspond consistently between the registration form and the admission roster | Compare the care bonus-point materials against the registration form and admission roster, verify the bonus item name, quantity, and review date, and check whether the reviewer's signature or receipt is missing |
| Admission roster | The admitted major, admission batch, admission date, and responsible person's signature are version-synchronized across the three materials, with consistent names and quantities | Using the admission roster as the baseline, trace back to the registration form and care bonus-point materials, verify the major, batch, date, and signature, and confirm any items whose versions are not synchronized |
| Citation content output | The number of returned entries matches the materials hit; being empty is also normal, and the chain continues to run through | Run a test with a question that matches no materials, and see whether the output is empty while the chain continues; then open the citation markers, compare against the source documents, record the array entry count, and separately verify the quoteMaxToken of the citation text, without comparing the entry count and the budget for equality |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same candidate's name or candidate number does not match between the registration form and the admission roster. Cause: The two materials were entered at different times, versions are not synchronized, and there is no unified receipt verification.
- Symptom: The item name and quantity in the care bonus-point materials are inconsistent with the registration form records. Cause: After the review opinion was updated, it was not written back to the registration form, and the signature or receipt is missing.
- Symptom: There are no citation markers in the answer, or the citation snippets do not match the original text. Cause: No materials were hit in this round, or the hit entries do not point back to the original paragraphs; this should not be directly attributed to length truncation.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: ask a question with original-text support, and verify whether the citation array and markers can point back to the original text; then ask a question with no matching materials, confirm the array is empty while the chain runs through, and record the array entry count, responseData (non-streaming module results returned with detailed output enabled), and quoteList, separately verify the quoteMaxToken of the citation text, and do not compare the entry count and the budget for equality.
Business test: check each item once according to the handover form, see which record is missing, confirm that versions, connections, and task records are consistent, and then hand over to operations or the next shift.
- Open the citation markers, compare against the source documents, confirm item by item that the citation snippets can point back to the original paragraphs, and record the array entry count and the
quoteMaxTokenbudget, without comparing them for equality. - Run a test with a question that matches no materials, confirm the output is empty while the chain continues, and check whether
quoteListwithinresponseDatafully record this round of retrieval.