What the Data for This Category Looks Like
Data primarily comes from public water quality monitoring data released by local ecological environment departments, daily operation and maintenance logs of water utility operators, project environmental impact assessment (EIA) approval documents, and test reports from third-party testing institutions. Regular monitoring data is updated monthly. Real-time monitoring data from key sewage outfalls is synchronized in real time. Acceptance data collected after project completion is archived in batches. Each due diligence document includes modules such as sampling point number, detection indicator list, corresponding compliance standard values, on-site working condition records, treatment process parameters, and operation and maintenance cycle records. pH value has no dimension. Chemical oxygen demand (COD) and ammonia nitrogen are measured in mg/L. Water treatment equipment operating flow is measured in m³/h. Operation and maintenance duration is measured in hours.
What Constraints These Characteristics Impose on Workflow Orchestration
The coexistence of real-time synchronization of local monitoring data and batch pulling of monthly ledger data requires the workflow to support both real-time trigger and scheduled trigger nodes, to adapt to data sources with different update rhythms. Each document contains structured content across multiple modules, so nodes must be configured to split and parse according to preset modules, to avoid redundant information interference caused by full parsing. Multiple types of detection indicators correspond to different units and compliance thresholds, so unit conversion and threshold matching logic must be embedded to ensure accurate compliance verification of due diligence data. Differences in archiving cycles across different data sources require setting independent update frequency parameters in the workflow, to avoid repeated pulling or missing the latest data.
How to Configure Settings
| Configuration Item | Recommended Value | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
trigger_mode | Enable real-time trigger and scheduled trigger simultaneously | Adapt to different update rhythms of real-time online monitoring data and monthly ledgers |
parse_chunk_length | 800–1200 characters | Adapt to the length of structured modules in water treatment due diligence documents, avoid losing indicator association relationships after splitting |
rag_recall_count | Top 8 entries | Cover associated data across multiple types of detection indicators, avoid information omission caused by single recall |
rag_similarity_threshold | 0.72–0.78 | Balance matching accuracy and recall completeness of detection indicators, adapt to semantic differences across different water quality parameters |
code_node_var_scope | Global workflow variables | Allow cross-node calls of knowledge base retrieval results, resolve issues with limited variable selection scope |
redis_connection_url | Fill in the standard Redis connection string according to the deployment environment | Store intermediate running status and historical retrieval results of the workflow, ensure breakpoint continuation and data persistence |
The parameter values provided on this page are conventional recommendations used as a starting point for configuration. Actual values are affected by material form, data volume, and business rules. Specific issues require case-by-case analysis. It is recommended to test on your own samples before finalizing settings.
Three Common Misconfigurations
- Phenomenon: The variable dropdown list in the code running node does not display knowledge base retrieval results, and returning the first result returns a null value. Cause: The output variable of the knowledge base retrieval node is not configured as globally accessible, and is limited to calls within the current node only.
- Phenomenon: A large amount of redundant non-detection indicator content appears after workflow parsing, and core fields of the due diligence report are missing. Cause: The rule to split and parse according to document modules is not configured, and full document sharding processing is performed directly.
- Phenomenon: A 400 status code is returned when creating a workflow via API call, prompting that trigger rule parameters are missing. Cause: The legal value of
trigger_modeis not correctly specified in the API request body, or theredis_connection_urlparameter is not configured.
How to Verify a Successful Configuration
- Enter the workflow configuration page, verify that the enabled type of
trigger_modematches the update frequency of the data source. - Manually trigger a test run, check the variable selection panel of the code node, and confirm that knowledge base retrieval results are included in the optional range.
- Submit a test request for creating a workflow via API, verify that the returned status code is 200 and there are no parameter missing prompts.
- View the workflow running logs, confirm that intermediate status data has been normally written to Redis storage, and there are no connection errors.
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.