What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the deployment, operations, and application handover scenarios of peer review organizations. The materials include three types: review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes. A review invitation records the manuscript title, submission date, expert name, and invitation receipt; expert review comments record the manuscript title, comment date, review conclusion, and signature; author revision notes record the manuscript title, revision date, point-by-point response, and signature. In the handover of deployment status and operation records, the three types of materials respectively assume the roles of invitation issuance, comment formation, and revision confirmation. The update cadence advances with review rounds. The field characteristics are that the manuscript title, quantity, and dates in the two materials for the same manuscript must be consistent, versions must be synchronized, and signatures and receipts must be complete. During handover, check item by item against the handover form, confirm that the version, connection, and task records are consistent, and then hand over to operations or the next shift.
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 the original text snippet and source identifier, and the length can be 0. The "handover-ready deployment status and operation records" are then completed by subsequent AI nodes, code nodes, or manual work.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | The review invitation fields include the manuscript title, submission date, expert name, and invitation receipt, and must match the manuscript title and date in the expert review comments | In the node, check the selected collection and its vector model, open the citation marker to compare against the source document, and compare fields, dates, and signatures item by item |
| Expert review comments | The expert review comments fields include the manuscript title, comment date, review conclusion, and signature, and must match the manuscript title and revision date in the author revision notes | Run a test with a question that has no matching materials, see that the output is empty while the chain continues, then check that the number of citations in responseData (non-streaming module results returned with detailed output enabled) matches the hit materials |
| Author revision notes | The author revision notes fields include the manuscript title, revision date, point-by-point response, and signature, and must be synchronized with the versions of the review invitation and expert review comments | Open the search parameter panel and check item by item, confirm that the values are consistent with those set in the knowledge base retrieval section, and record the quoteList and quoteMaxToken budgets |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The manuscript title, quantity, and dates for the same manuscript do not match between the review invitation and the expert review comments. Cause: The two materials were entered at different stages, and the fields and dates were not checked item by item against the handover form.
- Symptom: The versions of the author revision notes and expert review comments are not synchronized, and the cited snippets do not match the original text. Cause: After the materials were updated, the knowledge base was not re-associated, and the old version is still in the retrieval collection.
- Symptom: The review invitation lacks the expert receipt, or the expert review comments or author revision notes lack a signature. Cause: During handover, only the task records were checked, and whether the signatures and receipts were complete was not checked.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: ask a question with source evidence, check whether the citation array and markers can point back to the original text, and record the number of citations and the quoteMaxToken budget; do not compare the two for equality; then ask a question with no matching materials, and confirm that the array is empty while the chain runs through.
Business test: check item by item once against the handover form, see which record is missing, confirm that the version, connection, and task records are consistent, and then hand over to operations or the next shift.
- In the conversation, open the citation markers, compare against the source documents, and check the fields, dates, and signatures of the review invitation, expert review comments, and author revision notes item by item.
- Run a test with a question that has no matching materials, see that the output is empty while the chain continues, and open the search parameter panel to check the values item by item.