What this category's data looks like
This page's material comes from the deployment, operations, and application handover scenario of a peer review organization; the category covers three types of records: review invitations, expert review comments, and author revision notes. A review invitation contains the manuscript number, the date sent for review, the expert's name, and the invitation receipt; expert review comments contain the review dimensions, the conclusion, and a signature field; author revision notes contain point-by-point responses, the revision date, and a confirmation signature. The material enters the knowledge base retrieval and recall function in batches, and each type plays a different role: review invitations are used to check the scope of review and the receipt status, expert comments are used to compare the review conclusion and the completeness of signatures, and revision notes are used to confirm the response items and dates. The update cadence advances with review rounds, and the field characteristics center on four types: names, quantities, dates, and signatures. During retrieval, the three types of material serve as sources of candidate chunks, and the retrieval results are used by subsequent nodes or by humans to generate a handover-ready deployment status and operation record.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is performed by the knowledge base retrieval service (retrieval node and search test), which outputs candidate chunks and similarity scores (after pattern, merge, rerank, filter, and limit trimming). The "handover-ready deployment status and operation record" is completed afterward by subsequent nodes or by humans.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Review invitation | Whether the date sent for review and the receipt signature are consistent with the manuscript number and date in the expert comments | In the search test, switch searchMode to semantic, full-text, and hybrid, compare the number of candidates and the scores, and check the names, quantities, and dates in both the invitation and the comments material |
| Expert review comments | Whether the review conclusion and signature field correspond to the response items in the revision notes | Turn usingReRank on and off, observe changes in the order of the top few candidates, and compare item by item the number of items and dates in the comments and the notes |
| Author revision notes | Whether the revision date and confirmation signature are in sync with the versions of the review invitation and expert comments | Adjust the similarity threshold, observe changes in the number of candidates and the scores, and check whether the version numbers and signature receipts of the three materials are complete |
| Retrieval node and search test | Whether the candidate chunks and similarity scores cover the key fields of the three types of material | Record the number of items in the returned array, separately check the tokens of the referenced text, and confirm that key chunks of the original text are still retained after limit trimming |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the names, quantities, and dates of the same manuscript do not match across two materials. Cause: the review invitation and the expert comments were entered separately, without unified checking by manuscript number.
- Symptom: the version of the revision notes is not in sync with the review invitation and expert comments. Cause: after review rounds advanced, old material remained in the knowledge base and was not updated by batch.
- Symptom: expert comments or revision notes are missing a signature or receipt. Cause: at handover only the number of candidates was checked, without item-by-item inspection of the signature field and receipt date.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: test once each with synonym-rewritten questions, compare candidates and scores, then turn rerank on and off to see the ordering of the top few; switch searchMode and usingReRank, adjust similarity and limit, and record the number of candidates and the scores.
Business test: check item by item against the handover list to see which record is missing; check the names, quantities, dates, and signatures of the review invitation, expert review comments, and author revision notes, and confirm that the version, connections, and task records are consistent.
- In the knowledge base search test, switch
searchMode, compare the number of candidates and the scores under the semantic, full-text, and hybrid modes, and check whether the names, quantities, and dates of the three types of material are consistent. - Turn
usingReRankon and off, compare the order of the top few candidates; adjustsimilarityandlimit, record the number of items in the array, and separately check the tokens of the referenced text.