What the data for this category looks like
Solid waste treatment intelligent due diligence data is sourced from three main places: ecological environment department supervision and public notification platforms, project operator ledger systems, and third-party environmental assessment agency test reports. Supervision data is updated quarterly. Operator ledgers are entered in real time as disposal progresses. Third-party test reports are updated alongside project phases. A single due diligence report includes modules such as basic project information, solid waste generation details, disposal process records, compliance inspection records, and surrounding environmental monitoring data. Fields have clear unit requirements:
- Solid waste generation volume uses tons/batch or tons/year as units
- Pollutant monitoring values use mg/m³ or mg/L as units
- Qualification certificate numbers are character fields
- Inspection dates are date fields
What constraints do these characteristics impose on workflow orchestration?
Solid waste treatment due diligence data has scattered sources and three types of data sources with significant format differences. This requires workflow configurations to include multi-format parsing and adaptation nodes to handle PDF, Excel, and Word files respectively. Data update rhythms vary: supervision data is updated quarterly, and operator ledgers are entered in real time as disposal progresses. This requires workflows to support both scheduled and manual trigger modes, and to distinguish between incremental pull and full pull logic. Fields have clear unit requirements. This requires workflows to include a built-in field verification step to avoid unit entry errors. Document structures include multiple module sub-items. This requires setting separate extraction rules for key modules such as compliance records and monitoring data to ensure complete extraction of core information.
How to set the configurations
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
PARSE_SUPPORTED_FILE_TYPES | ["application/pdf", "application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet", "application/msword"] | Covers the three file formats commonly used for solid waste due diligence: supervision and public notification PDFs, operator ledger Excel files, and test report Word documents |
WORKFLOW_TRIGGER_MODE | ["scheduled", "manual"] | Adapts to scheduled pulls of quarterly updated supervision data and manual trigger requirements for real-time operator ledgers |
FIELD_VALIDATION_RULES | Pre-configured verification rules including solid waste generation volume (units limited to tons/batch, tons/year) and pollutant concentration (units limited to mg/m³, mg/L) | Matches the unit and value type requirements of solid waste due diligence fields to avoid data entry errors |
PLUGIN_VARIABLE_PASS_STRATEGY | dynamic_binding | Supports passing dynamic variables such as project ID and operating entity via API, adapting to due diligence scenarios for different solid waste projects |
RECALL_TOP_K | Top 8 entries | Covers multi-dimensional associated information such as compliance records and disposal processes in solid waste due diligence, avoiding omission of key data |
WORKFLOW_TIMEOUT | 900 seconds | Adapts to the time requirements of multi-source data pulling, parsing, and structured processing, preventing workflow interruptions mid-execution |
The parameter values provided on this page are common starting points for configuration. Actual values are affected by material form, data volume, and business rules. Specific issues require specific analysis, and it is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing.
Three common mistakes
- Symptom: When calling a knowledge base plugin in a workflow, the specified solid waste project knowledge base cannot be selected via variables. Cause:
PLUGIN_VARIABLE_PASS_STRATEGYis not configured to dynamic binding mode, so variables are not correctly passed to the knowledge base selection parameter. - Symptom: Workflow return results do not match the incoming project keywords, and prompt variables do not take effect. Cause: The variable replacement switch is not enabled in the workflow node, so dynamic parameters passed via the API are not parsed.
- Symptom: No return data is seen in the tool call phase during workflow debugging, and logs show parsing failures. Cause: The corresponding file format is not added to the
PARSE_SUPPORTED_FILE_TYPESconfiguration item, so supervision and public notification PDFs cannot be parsed normally.
How to confirm the configuration is complete
- Upload a single solid waste due diligence document, verify that the parsing node can correctly extract all preset core fields, and that field units comply with preset rules.
- Trigger scheduled and manual workflows respectively, check whether the scheduled task can pull supervision data for the corresponding cycle, and whether the manual task can obtain the latest operator ledger content in real time.
- Pass dynamic project variables via the API to call the workflow, confirm that the returned analysis content matches the bound project parameters.
- Run the complete workflow chain, check whether there are no errors in the execution logs of each node, and whether the tool call phase can normally return expected data.
Question material comes from public community discussions. Configuration values are common starting points and should be measured against your own samples. Verified on 2026-09-14.