Construction engineering technical bid multi-format generation configuration method and device, equipment and medium

Abstract

The embodiment of the application discloses a building engineering technical bid multi-format generation configuration method, device, equipment and medium, and relates to the technical field of artificial intelligence. The method comprises the following steps: identifying a building format from bid data, constructing a building format image containing evidence identification and extracting a bid constraint set; matching a plurality of candidate plug-ins of a plug-in level with the two as joint query conditions, establishing a candidate rule set according to a technical bid processing interface splitting rule after adaptability verification; performing evidence access in each interface first, then identifying a conflict type, and respectively disposing according to a preset priority order or a merging rule according to the mandatory requirements of the bid, to obtain effective rules; binding the interface, the effective rules and the evidence index into a unified configuration, and performing reverse review from the output field, and when the reverse review fails, performing directional correction and rewriting according to the error type, and when the reverse review passes, reading the effective rules by a technical bid generation module. By implementing the method of the embodiment of the application, the incidence of configuration inconsistency with bid requirements can be reduced, and the rework time can be shortened.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of artificial intelligence technology, and in particular to methods, apparatus, equipment and media for generating and configuring multi-format technical specifications for building engineering. Background Technology

[0002] In construction project bidding, the technical bid is a crucial component of the evaluation process. It encompasses the overall construction plan, key technologies, schedule, and quality and safety measures, requiring extensive documentation within a short timeframe. With the introduction of information technology, the industry has begun to utilize computer systems to assist in, and even automatically generate, technical bid documents. Construction projects have diverse functions and uses; the technical bids for residential buildings, schools, hospitals, factories, commercial complexes, office buildings, hotels, and municipal infrastructure projects differ in their content focus. Furthermore, the main body of the tender documents, evaluation methods, addenda, and Q&A materials for the same project will also impose specific requirements on the content, format, and response methods of the technical bid. Therefore, before generating the technical bid document, such systems typically need to first establish a set of rules, a knowledge base, prompts, and checklist configurations tailored to the specific project.

[0003] In existing technologies, to facilitate system capability expansion, existing systems implement each specialized function as an independently developable and deployable functional module. Through unified interface specifications, module registration information, and descriptions of dependencies between modules, dynamic mounting and invocation of functional modules are achieved. Regarding the automatic generation of bidding documents, existing solutions pre-establish a document template library, match appropriate templates according to project type characteristics, handle conflicts between template tags, and write back relevant parameters and retain version records after manual review and approval.

[0004] When applying the above methods to generate technical bids for architectural engineering projects, discrepancies often arise between the resulting configuration and the actual needs of the project, as well as the explicit requirements of the bidding documents. For projects with different functions and uses, the output chapter arrangement, knowledge citations, and checklist items require significant manual adjustments. Omissions or discrepancies in the generated results regarding scoring items, blind bidding requirements, and mandatory response clauses in the bidding documents necessitate repeated manual comparisons before the bid deadline. Even after supplements and clarifications are released in the bidding documents, the configuration may still be output according to previous requirements, resulting in situations where the requirements are outdated. Such discrepancies may be considered insufficient responses during the bid evaluation process, and in severe cases, lead to bid rejection.

[0005] The configuration process is also unstable. After a functional module is mounted, the configuration process may still be interrupted and needs to be rolled back and redone; within the same project, the output quality of some processing steps may significantly decrease, or previously available capabilities may be disabled, and the configuration results may vary between different projects; troubleshooting rule conflicts is time-consuming, and resolving one conflict often affects the output of other steps; the outputs of different processing steps may contradict each other, for example, there may be inconsistencies between chapter arrangements and inspection items, and formatting requirements, requiring manual finalization after the final draft is completed.

[0006] Even after the configuration passes review, incomplete or incorrect items may still be found in the final draft stage, and the review conclusions may not match the quality of the final draft. When the review fails, the scope of rework is difficult to define, usually requiring the entire configuration process to be redone. Correcting a single problem triggers extensive recalculations, and new deviations often appear in other stages after the correction. This process often involves multiple rounds of iterations without achieving a convergence, and the time consumed accumulates with each round. Furthermore, when the configuration results are questioned, the bidding documents must be reviewed item by item for verification, which is time-consuming and the conclusions are difficult to reliably reach.

[0007] In summary, in the process of generating technical bids for building engineering projects with multiple functions and uses, how to reduce the inconsistency between the resulting configuration and the explicit requirements of the bidding documents, improve the stability of the configuration formation process, and shorten the time required for review, rework, and post-verification are technical problems that need to be solved in this field. Summary of the Invention

[0008] This application provides a method, apparatus, equipment, and medium for generating configurations for multiple business formats in construction engineering technical bids. It aims to solve the problems of inconsistencies between the configurations generated when construction engineering technical bids are generated for projects with multiple functions and uses and the explicit requirements of the bidding documents, the instability of the configuration formation process, and the long time required for review, rework, and post-verification.

[0009] In a first aspect, embodiments of this application provide a method for generating and configuring multiple business formats for technical bids in construction engineering projects. The method includes: acquiring bidding documents for a construction project; identifying business formats from the bidding documents; constructing a business format profile, the business format profile including at least a business format category and an evidence identifier pointing to the original text location in the bidding documents; extracting bidding constraints related to technical bid preparation from the bidding documents to obtain a set of bidding constraints; using the business format profile and the set of bidding constraints as joint query conditions, matching candidate plugins belonging to multiple plugin levels from a plugin registry, the multiple plugin levels including at least a business format plugin level; performing applicability verification on the candidate plugins to obtain an applicable plugin set composed of candidate plugins that pass the applicability verification; splitting the rules provided by each applicable plugin in the applicable plugin set according to the technical bid processing interface, and establishing candidate rule sets for each of the multiple technical bid processing interfaces; resolving conflicts within the candidate rule set of each technical bid processing interface: first, performing evidence admission to exclude candidate rules that do not have valid evidence or whose associated evidence has been replaced by updated data in the bidding documents; then, identifying the candidate rules that pass the evidence admission... The conflict types are identified and handled accordingly. For candidate rules with mutually exclusive or overlapping conflicts, a lexicographical order decision is made based on a preset priority. For candidate rules with merging conflicts, a merging process is performed to obtain the valid rules for each technical bid processing interface. In the preset priority, the priority of explicitly mandatory requirements in the tender is higher than the priority between plugin levels. The interface bindings of each technical bid processing interface, the valid rules, and the evidence index are encapsulated into a unified configuration. The evidence index establishes a mapping between the building industry profile, the tender constraints, the valid rules, and the original text of the tender documents. The process involves: traversing the evidence index backwards from the output fields in the unified configuration to verify the corresponding review items; determining the evidence review result of the unified configuration based on the verification results of each review item, wherein review items that fail verification are marked with an error type; when the evidence review result is unsuccessful, routing the unsuccessful review items to the corresponding correction stage according to the error type, correcting the affected parameters and writing them back, and re-executing the evidence review on the unified configuration after writing it back; when the evidence review result is successful, providing the unified configuration to the technical specification generation module for reading.

[0010] Secondly, this application also provides a multi-format generation and configuration device for construction engineering technical bids, comprising: a profile construction module, used to acquire bidding documents for construction engineering projects, identify construction formats from the bidding documents, and construct a construction format profile, wherein the construction format profile includes at least a construction format category and an evidence identifier pointing to the original text location in the bidding documents; a constraint extraction module, used to extract bidding constraints related to the preparation of technical bids from the bidding documents to obtain a set of bidding constraints; and a plug-in matching module, used to use the construction format profile and the set of bidding constraints as joint query conditions to match candidate plug-ins belonging to multiple plug-in levels from a plug-in registry. The multiple plugin layers include at least a construction industry plugin layer; an applicability verification module is used to verify the applicability of the candidate plugins, obtaining an applicable plugin set consisting of candidate plugins that pass the applicability verification; a rule binding module is used to split the rules provided by each applicable plugin in the applicable plugin set according to the technical bid processing interface, and to establish candidate rule sets for each of the multiple technical bid processing interfaces; a conflict resolution module is used to resolve conflicts within the candidate rule set of each technical bid processing interface: first, evidence admission is performed to exclude candidate rules that do not have valid evidence or whose associated evidence has been replaced by updated information in the bidding documents; then, the candidate rules that pass the evidence admission are... Candidate rules identify conflict types and handle them accordingly. Specifically, candidate rules with mutually exclusive or overlapping conflicts are determined by lexicographical ordering according to a preset priority order. Candidate rules with merging conflicts are merged to obtain valid rules for each technical bid processing interface. In the preset priority order, the priority of explicitly mandatory requirements in the tender is higher than the priority between plug-in levels. A configuration encapsulation module is used to encapsulate the interface bindings of each technical bid processing interface, the valid rules, and the evidence index into a unified configuration. The evidence index establishes a mapping between the building industry profile, the tender constraints, the valid rules, and the original text of the tender documents. An evidence verification module is used to... The unified configuration output field is used to traverse the evidence index backwards from the starting point to verify the corresponding review items. The evidence review result of the unified configuration is determined based on the verification result of each review item. Review items that fail verification are marked with an error type. The correction and write-back module is used to route the review items that fail verification to the corresponding correction stage according to the error type when the evidence review result is not passed, correct the affected parameters and write them back, and trigger the evidence review module to re-execute the evidence review of the unified configuration after the write-back. The configuration output module is used to provide the unified configuration to the technical specification generation module for reading when the evidence review result is passed.

[0011] Thirdly, embodiments of this application also provide an electronic device, which includes a memory and a processor, wherein the memory stores a computer program, and the processor executes the computer program to implement the above-described method.

[0012] Fourthly, embodiments of this application also provide a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program, the computer program including program instructions that, when executed by a processor, can implement the above-described method.

[0013] This application provides a method, apparatus, equipment, and medium for generating and configuring multiple business formats of architectural engineering technical bids. The method includes: identifying the construction industry type from the bidding documents and constructing a construction industry type profile carrying evidence identifiers, and extracting a set of bidding constraints; matching candidate plugins belonging to multiple plugin levels using the construction industry type profile and the set of bidding constraints as joint query conditions, and performing applicability verification on the candidate plugins to obtain a set of applicable plugins composed of candidate plugins that pass the applicability verification; splitting the rules provided by each applicable plugin in the set of applicable plugins according to the technical bid processing interface, and establishing candidate rule sets for multiple technical bid processing interfaces respectively; performing evidence admission and conflict type identification first in each technical bid processing interface, and then performing lexicographical order decision or merging processing according to the conflict type to obtain the effective rules of each technical bid processing interface; encapsulating the interface binding, effective rules, and evidence index into a unified configuration, and performing evidence review by traversing the evidence index backwards from the output field in the unified configuration to obtain the evidence review result; when the evidence review result is unsuccessful, routing the unsuccessful review items to the corresponding correction stage according to the error type and correcting and writing back; when the evidence review result is successful, providing the unified configuration to the technical bid generation module for reading. This application's embodiments, by jointly driving plug-in matching and applicability verification with a building industry profile carrying evidence identification and a set of bidding constraints, split the plug-in rules according to the technical bid processing interface, and resolve conflicts within each interface by prioritizing evidence access and explicit mandatory requirements in the bidding over the plug-in level in a lexicographical order decision. Furthermore, a unified configuration carrying an evidence index is provided for downstream technical bid generation modules to read, accept reverse review, and perform targeted corrections based on error type. This can reduce the incidence of inconsistencies between the formed configuration and the explicit requirements of the bidding documents, improve the stability of the configuration formation process, and shorten the time required for review, rework, and post-verification. Attached Figure Description

[0014] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of this application, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are some embodiments of this application. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0015] Figure 1 A flowchart illustrating the method for generating and configuring multi-format architectural engineering technical bids provided in this application embodiment;

[0016] Figure 2 A schematic diagram of a sub-process of step S106 in the multi-format generation and configuration method for architectural engineering technical bids provided in this application embodiment;

[0017] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the sub-processes of steps S108 and S109 in the multi-format generation and configuration method for architectural engineering technical bids provided in the embodiments of this application;

[0018] Figure 4 A schematic block diagram of a multi-format generation and configuration device for architectural engineering technical standards provided in this application embodiment;

[0019] Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided in an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0020] The technical solutions of the embodiments of this application will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some, not all, of the embodiments of this application. All other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art based on the embodiments of this application without creative effort are within the scope of protection of this application.

[0021] It should be understood that, when used in this specification and the appended claims, the terms "comprising" and "including" indicate the presence of the described features, integrals, steps, operations, elements and / or components, but do not exclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integrals, steps, operations, elements, components and / or collections thereof.

[0022] It should also be understood that the terminology used in this specification is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to limit the scope of the application. As used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” are intended to include the plural forms unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

[0023] It should also be further understood that the term “and / or” as used in this application specification and the appended claims means any combination of one or more of the associated listed items and all possible combinations, and includes such combinations.

[0024] See Figure 1 This embodiment provides a method for generating and configuring multiple business formats of construction engineering technical bids. This method can be executed by a technical bid generation system, which may be deployed on a server. The method includes steps S101 to S110.

[0025] Step S101: Obtain the bidding documents for the construction project, identify the construction industry type from the bidding documents, and construct a construction industry type profile. The construction industry type profile includes at least the construction industry type category and an evidence identifier pointing to the original text location in the bidding documents.

[0026] This step is initiated when the bidding documents for a construction project are entered into the system. Bidding documents may include, for example, a bidding announcement, the main text of the bidding documents, the evaluation method, the bill of quantities, drawings, clarifications, addenda, a project overview table, and compressed attachment packages, etc. This is a non-limiting example. During the data reception process, the system extracts clues reflecting the project's functional positioning from the data, thereby identifying the building type to which the project belongs. Building type refers to the functional nature of a construction project, such as hospitals, schools, factories, residences, commercial complexes, office buildings, hotels, and municipal facilities. It should be noted that building type describes the functional attribute of the project's intended use after completion, and is not the same concept as the project type under the bidding business scope—even within the category of building construction, hospitals and schools differ significantly in the composition of their technical bid sections, key processes, standard references, illustration types, and scoring focus points. They cannot be distinguished solely by project type, which is why this method uses building type rather than project type as the basis for matching. The identified building type, along with its source, is written into a building type profile: the profile at least records the building type category and an evidence marker pointing to the original location in the bidding documents. Evidence identifiers are location information pointing to paragraphs, tables, or blocks in the original bidding documents, such as evidence block numbers after the documents are segmented and numbered. In this application, valid evidence refers to evidence whose evidence identifier points to content that is readable, whose corresponding document version is currently valid, and whose content can support the corresponding profile fields, bidding constraints, or candidate rules. The system determines the validity of evidence by verifying the correspondence between the evidence identifier, document version, associated objects, and evidence content with the target fields or target rule keys. The reason for requiring the profile to have its own evidence identifier is to ensure that each subsequent plugin matching and rule decision based on the profile can be traced back to the original bidding document, thus pre-setting an anchor point for the reverse verification in step S108. At this point, the system obtains a building industry profile with evidence identifiers, which serves as the first input for the joint query in step S103.

[0027] Step S102: Extract the bidding constraints related to the preparation of the technical bid from the bidding documents to obtain a set of bidding constraints.

[0028] Simultaneously or subsequently, the system performs targeted extraction of bidding documents for technical bid preparation. Bidding constraints are items in the bidding documents that impose requirements on the content, format, or response method of the technical bid, such as scoring items, technical bid preparation requirements, format constraints, blind bidding requirements, and mandatory response clauses. Some of these constraints are explicitly mandatory requirements, meaning they are clearly stated in the bidding documents, and failure to meet them will affect the evaluation or even directly disqualify the bid. Examples include clauses explicitly marked as mandatory, veto clauses, and mandatory response clauses. Explicitly mandatory requirements will have the highest priority in conflict resolution in step S106. The extracted constraints are compiled into a bidding constraint set, which, together with the building industry profile, constitutes the joint query conditions in step S103 and also serves as the source of evidence upon which subsequent evidence access depends.

[0029] Step S103: Using the building industry profile and the bidding constraint set as joint query conditions, match candidate plugins belonging to multiple plugin levels from the plugin registry, wherein the multiple plugin levels include at least the building industry plugin level.

[0030] The plugin registry is a registration structure that records the identifier, version, scope of application, and interface capability declarations of each plugin. The system accesses the plugin registry after combining the profile and constraint sets into joint query conditions. The emphasis on joint search is because searching solely by profile will miss specific requirements for this project as outlined in the tender documents, while searching solely by constraint will fail to reflect differences in business types. Both conditions must be used together to ensure that the matching results simultaneously match the project's functional characteristics and the explicit requirements of the tender. Plugins are organized hierarchically, including at least a building business type plugin layer. Within the business type plugin layer, capabilities such as chapter templates, process knowledge routes, library tags, and inspection items specific to each business type, such as hospitals, schools, factories, and residences, are encapsulated. In addition to the business type plugin layer, the plugin hierarchy can further include a basic plugin layer, a regional plugin layer, and a project-specific plugin layer. The number and granularity of the layers can be set according to the needs of rule management and are not limited to a specific number of layers. The matched plugins are called candidate plugins—they are called candidate because they are not yet enabled and must first be checked in step S104.

[0031] Step S104: Perform applicability verification on the candidate plugins to obtain a set of applicable plugins consisting of the candidate plugins that have passed the applicability verification.

[0032] This step addresses the issue of plugins being registerable but not applicable: a plugin registered in the registry may not be suitable for the current project's business type and scale, nor may it function correctly in the intended processing stage. Applicability verification may include, for example, verifying whether the scope of application declared by the candidate plugin covers the building industry profile, whether the input data mode declared by the candidate plugin can be provided by the bidding constraint set, and whether the interface capabilities declared by the candidate plugin cover the technical bid processing interface to be bound. These are non-limiting examples; specific verification content will be elaborated later. In one embodiment, candidate plugins that fail verification are not enabled, preventing defective plugins from being installed at the source; candidate plugins that pass verification are included in the applicable plugin set, and the applicable plugins in the applicable plugin set participate in rule splitting in step S105.

[0033] Step S105: Decompose the rules provided by each applicable plugin in the set of applicable plugins according to the technical standard processing interface, and establish candidate rule sets for each of the multiple technical standard processing interfaces.

[0034] The technical specification processing interface serves as the rule access point for each processing stage in the technical specification generation process. Examples include the directory generation interface, knowledge base routing interface, prompt word construction interface, image and text adaptation interface, formatting interface, and invalid specification check interface. Previous plugin mounting methods typically mounted plugins as indivisible units all at once. Even if only a portion of a plugin's capabilities were applicable to the current project, the entire plugin would either take effect or be rendered unusable. This step reverses this approach: the rules provided by each applicable plugin in the applicable plugin set are separated according to the interface they function on, and each is placed into its own candidate rule set. This separation ensures that the same applicable plugin only takes effect on the interfaces that have passed verification, and the identification and resolution of rule conflicts are limited to the scope of a single interface, providing an interface-level working surface for step S106.

[0035] Step S106: Conflict resolution is performed within the candidate rule set of each technical bid processing interface: First, evidence admission is performed to exclude candidate rules that do not have valid evidence or whose associated evidence has been replaced by updated information in the bidding documents; then, the conflict types of the candidate rules that have passed the evidence admission are identified and handled according to the conflict types. Among them, candidate rules with mutual exclusion conflicts or covering conflicts are decided by lexicographical order according to a preset priority order, and candidate rules with merging conflicts are merged to obtain the valid rules of each technical bid processing interface. In the preset priority order, the priority of the explicit mandatory requirements of the bidding is higher than the priority between the plug-in levels.

[0036] Within the candidate rule set of the same interface, rules from different plugins may impose different requirements on the same target. For example, the default body text font rule of the basic plugin may be inconsistent with the font requirements of the implicit tender document. In this case, the conflict must be resolved. The resolution process includes evidence admission, conflict type identification, and classification and handling. The first step is evidence admission: each candidate rule is checked to see if it has the original tender document or profile field as a basis for its validity. Any rule that does not have valid evidence, or whose evidence has been replaced by updated materials such as addenda or Q&A, is excluded from the list of valid rules. Evidence admission makes the existence of evidence a prerequisite for the rule to take effect, thus preventing unfounded rules from crowding out configuration. After evidence is accepted, the conflict types between candidate rules are first identified. For mutually exclusive or overlapping conflicts, they are compared from high to low according to a preset priority order. Once the priority of the previous rule is determined, the decision is made, and subsequent priorities are not compared. In the preset priority order, the priority of the explicitly mandatory requirements in the tender is higher than the priority between plugin levels, thus ensuring that the default rule of any plugin cannot cover the explicit requirements of the tender document—this is the key to transforming conflict handling from a general priority to one constrained by the tender evidence. In some implementations, lexicographical order decision can also be achieved by setting tiered values ​​with significantly different magnitudes for each priority level and then comparing the tiered values ​​of each rule. As long as the magnitude of the higher priority level value is sufficient to overwhelm the sum of all lower priority level values, this tiered value comparison can achieve a decision effect equivalent to a positional comparison, which also falls under the lexicographical order decision mentioned in this step. After this step, each technical bid processing interface obtains mutually non-conflicting and evidence-based valid rules.

[0037] Step S107: The interface binding of each technical bid processing interface, the effective rules, and the evidence index are encapsulated into a unified configuration. The evidence index establishes a mapping between the building industry profile, the bidding constraints, the effective rules, and the original text of the bidding documents.

[0038] The interface binding records which plugin and which capability actually provides services for each technical bid processing interface; the evidence index maps the profile fields, bidding constraints, and valid rules one by one to the evidence identifiers in the original bidding documents, forming a mapping network from which the original text can be retrieved from any configuration content. After the interface binding, valid rules, and evidence index are encapsulated into a unified configuration, downstream modules such as table of contents generation, chapter generation, image and text adaptation and layout, rejection item checking, and rationality verification read the same configuration. Each module no longer needs to select plugins or interpret rules independently, and the problem of inconsistent plugin selection criteria is structurally eliminated. The unified configuration is the core data product of this method, and it must undergo evidence verification in step S108 before being delivered to downstream users.

[0039] Step S108: Starting from the output field in the unified configuration, traverse the evidence index in reverse to perform verification, obtain the corresponding review items, and determine the evidence review result of the unified configuration based on the verification result of each review item. Among them, the review items that fail the verification are marked with the error type.

[0040] Output fields are fields in the unified configuration that are read by the technical bid generation module. For integrity, consistency, and timeliness checks, this step starts from each output field and checks backward along the evidence index to see if its basis exists, whether they are consistent, and whether the cited evidence is up-to-date. For coverage checks, it starts from each bidding constraint in the bidding constraint set and queries the evidence index to see if each bidding constraint establishes a response mapping with at least one valid rule of the technical bid processing interface. Thus, the backward check covers all content that will be used downstream, and the constraint-side check covers all bidding requirements that should be responded to. When problems are found during the review, instead of reporting a general failure, a review item is generated item by item, and each review item is labeled with an error type. The error type indicates whether the problem occurs at the level of profile, constraint, plugin scope, interface binding, or rule conflict. The system determines the unified configuration evidence review result based on the verification results of each review item: if the verification result of any mandatory review item is failure, the evidence review result is failure; if the verification results of all mandatory review items are success, the evidence review result is success. The verification items that fail and their error types serve as the routing basis for the directional correction in step S109.

[0041] Step S109: When the evidence review result is unsuccessful, the unsuccessful review item is routed to the corresponding correction step according to the error type, the affected parameters are corrected and written back, and the evidence review is re-executed on the unified configuration after writing back.

[0042] The system pre-sets corresponding correction steps for different error types. Verification failures are assigned to the appropriate step based on their error type. The reason for routing by error type instead of rerunning the entire process is that the configuration generation link is long, and indiscriminate reruns waste computing power and may further disturb already correct parameters. The correction step only corrects the affected parameters. After correction, the parameters are written back to the corresponding profile, constraint, or interface rule location, and then the system returns to step S108 for re-verification, forming a closed loop of verification, correction, and re-verification until the evidence verification result is passed.

[0043] Step S110: When the evidence review result is passed, the unified configuration is provided to the technical specification generation module for reading.

[0044] The fact that the evidence review result is passed means that each business output field in the unified configuration that requires bidding basis has a verifiable original bidding document as its basis; system fields such as plugin version, interface binding, process trajectory, and configuration snapshot identifier have verifiable plugin registration information, system configuration records, or process records. Subsequently, the technical bid generation modules, such as directory generation, chapter generation, graphic and text adaptation and layout, rejection item checking, and rationality verification, use this unified configuration as a common input to carry out their respective generation and checking operations. The multi-business technical bid generation configuration process for this project is thus completed.

[0045] In this embodiment, the building industry profile and bidding constraint set are constructed with evidence markers pointing to the original text of the bidding documents from the outset, and participate in plug-in matching as joint query conditions. This ensures that the matching results are simultaneously constrained by the project's functional industry and the explicit requirements of the bidding. The chapter arrangement, knowledge references, and inspection items for projects with different functions and uses do not require extensive manual adjustments. The scoring items, blind bidding requirements, and mandatory response clauses in the bidding documents are also less likely to be missed in the configuration. Candidate plug-ins must pass applicability verification and be included in the applicable plug-in set before they are enabled. Plug-ins that are not applicable to the current project or current processing stage are excluded before being enabled to avoid process interruptions and rollbacks after they are configured. The rules provided by each applicable plugin in the applicable plugin set are split according to the technical specification processing interface to establish a candidate rule set. The same plugin can only be effective on its verified interface, without having to be completely disabled due to the inapplicability of some capabilities. The scope of rule conflict identification and handling is also limited to a single interface without affecting the output of other interfaces. In conflict resolution, candidate rules that do not have valid evidence or whose associated evidence has been replaced by updated data are first excluded based on evidence admission. Then, the conflict type is identified. For mutually exclusive conflicts and overriding conflicts, a lexicographical order decision is made according to the preset priority order that is explicitly required by the tender to be higher than the plugin level. For merged conflicts, a merge process is performed to ensure that the valid rules of each technical specification processing interface are all based on the priority order. Based on currently valid bidding documents, the plugin's default rules cover explicitly mandatory requirements of the bidding documents, and the situation where configurations reuse requirements that have been superseded by addenda or Q&A is avoided; interface binding, valid rules, and evidence index are encapsulated into a unified configuration and jointly read by the technical bid generation module, eliminating the need for downstream stages to select plugins and interpret rules independently, thus reducing the need for manual compilation of conflicting outputs between stages after finalization; evidence review traverses the evidence index in reverse from the unified configuration's output fields, covering all content to be read downstream rather than just a portion, thereby reducing the situation where missing or incorrect items are only exposed in the final draft stage after the evidence review result is passed; and errors in review item labeling are also reduced. Error types are identified and failures are routed to corresponding correction stages. Correction is limited to the affected parameters. After writing back, the data is re-verified until the evidence verification result is satisfactory. The rework scope narrows from the entire configuration process to locatable failures. Verification and correction form a closed loop, ensuring that all configurations delivered downstream have passed full verification. Furthermore, all business output fields requiring bidding documents in the unified configuration can be traced back to the original bidding documents via the evidence index. System fields such as plugin version, interface binding, process trace, and configuration snapshot identifier can be traced back to the corresponding plugin registration information, system configuration records, or process records. Verification of configuration results no longer relies on re-examining each item in the bidding documents. Therefore, the inconsistency rate between the resulting configuration and the explicit requirements of the bidding documents is reduced, the stability of the configuration formation process is improved, and the time required for review, rework, and post-verification is shortened.

[0046] It should be noted that several common designs are also applicable to the above steps. These designs are not necessary for implementing this method, but are generally applicable to various embodiments of this application. The system can establish a data ledger for each piece of data entering the system. The ledger records the file hash, version number, receiving time, source path, and data type label, providing underlying support for the location of evidence identification and the judgment of data timeliness. In step S109, the loop until the evidence review is passed can also be set with a manual termination exit—when the remaining failed items still cannot automatically converge after multiple rounds of correction, the loop is manually confirmed and terminated to avoid the loop not converging in extreme cases. In terms of the executing entity, each step of this method is executed unilaterally by the technical bid generation system. This system can be deployed as a single server, a server cluster, or a cloud service. In addition, basic and general rules may not be associated with any specific bidding constraints, that is, the bidding constraints to which they apply are an empty set; such rules still need to be based on the profile field with valid evidence identification as the basis for effectiveness. The system default configuration is only used as a source of candidate rules and is not used as the basis for evidence admission alone.

[0047] In one embodiment, step S101 may specifically include steps S1011 to S1013.

[0048] Step S1011: When obtaining bidding documents, simultaneously initiate building industry identification and extract candidate industry clues.

[0049] The system doesn't wait for the complete tender analysis to finish; instead, it begins identification as soon as the data enters the system. The window for preparing technical bids is usually tight, so early identification allows for earlier plugin matching and rule preparation. Candidate business type clues are taken from at least one of the following in the tender documents: file name, project name, tender announcement summary, project overview table, drawing catalog, and scoring method title. These locations share the common characteristic of being easily readable without in-depth analysis. For example, "×× Hospital Comprehensive Building" in the file name or "Cleanroom Engineering Special Scoring" in the scoring method title are sufficient to indicate the business type direction.

[0050] Step S1012: Identify building industry types based on candidate industry type clues.

[0051] Identification methods can include keyword rules, engineering entity recognition, text vector classification, or multi-label classification models, combined with the confidence of evidence from each clue for fusion judgment; to improve the hit rate, a building industry feature dictionary can be pre-established for feature words such as outpatient buildings, inpatient buildings, clean areas, laboratories, teaching buildings, dormitory buildings, production workshops, storage areas, residential towers, and underground garages, and clues that hit the dictionary are included as evidence of the corresponding industry.

[0052] Step S1013: Construct a profile of the building industry based on the recognition results.

[0053] In addition to business type and evidence identifiers, the profile fields can also include at least one of the following: sub-business type, scene tag, geographical information, project scale, structural type, specialized system information, delivery mode, and confidence level. Sub-business type further distinguishes between different business types, such as general hospitals and specialized hospitals under hospitals, electronic factories and steel structure factories under factories, and prefabricated houses under residences. Scene tags depict the specific operational context of the project, such as outpatient medical technology, clean areas, complex electromechanical systems, and renovations that do not require interruption of services. Confidence level indicates the reliability of the identification conclusion. For projects where a single business type cannot be determined, the profile retains multiple candidate business type categories and their respective confidence levels. For example, if a renovation and expansion project simultaneously exhibits characteristics of both hospitals and offices, it can retain both a hospital candidate with a confidence level of 0.72 and an office building candidate with a confidence level of 0.41, rather than forcing a choice between the two.

[0054] The retained confidence level is not just for display; it also has another use in step S104: in the applicability verification, it can further verify whether the confidence level corresponding to the building type to which the candidate plugin is applicable reaches a preset threshold, for example, 0.6. Plugins for building types with insufficient confidence levels will not be enabled, avoiding the hasty application of building type rules when the building type judgment is not yet reliable. In this case, the project can first generate the configuration according to the general rules of the basic plugin layer, and then supplement the adaptation after the building type is manually confirmed.

[0055] Since business type identification and data reception are carried out simultaneously, and the clues are all lightweight and readily available fields, the profile construction does not depend on the complete parsing results, and the overall latency of configuration preparation is shortened; the multi-candidate and confidence mechanism makes the uncertainty in business type judgment explicitly managed rather than masked, and the risk of mismatch of the whole set of rules due to misjudgment of business type is reduced.

[0056] In one embodiment, step S102 may specifically include steps S1021 and S1022.

[0057] Step S1021: Extract bidding constraints from the bidding documents.

[0058] The extraction process focuses on essential information directly related to business model adaptation and technical bid preparation. Bidding constraints include at least one of the following: scoring items, technical bid preparation requirements, format constraints, blind bid requirements, key construction content, drawing professional catalog, main engineering parameters, and mandatory response clauses. Two extraction paths are possible: for projects with existing bid document parsing results, the above fields are directly extracted from the parsing output; for new projects or projects where parsing is not yet complete, a lightweight parsing mode is used to locate and extract information from the document's title, table of contents, tables, and keyword paragraphs. These two paths can also be combined. The purpose of targeted extraction is not to completely reconstruct the bid document, but to provide necessary input for plugin matching and rule-based decision-making.

[0059] Step S1022: Assign a mandatory level, document version, and evidence identifier to each tender constraint record.

[0060] The mandatory level distinction between explicit mandatory and general requirements serves as the data basis for identifying explicit mandatory requirements in the bidding process during step S106, the dictionary order decision. The document version record indicates whether the constraint originates from the original bidding documents or from updated documents such as addenda or clarifications. For addenda, clarifications, and other updated documents, the record also includes the original clause identifier, type of action, and scope of application. Types of action include substitution, supplementation, and clarification. Only when the type of action is substitution and the target clause and scope of application match is the corresponding old evidence determined to have been substituted. The evidence identifier anchors the constraint to its original text position. Furthermore, normalized values ​​can be recorded for constraints; for example, the requirement to use 12pt Song typeface in the main body of the bid document can be normalized into font and font size parameters, which can be directly used in the formatting interface.

[0061] With each constraint having its own three elements—enforcement level, version, and evidence—subsequent steps in determining the validity and timeliness of the constraint no longer rely on repeated analysis of the original text. The decision-making rules of prioritizing explicit requirements and prioritizing updated data thus gain a definite data basis.

[0062] In one embodiment, step S103 may specifically include steps S1031 and S1032.

[0063] Step S1031: Search for candidate plugins by plugin level.

[0064] The plugin hierarchy can be specifically set up as four layers: basic plugin layer, construction industry plugin layer, regional plugin layer, and project-specific plugin layer. The basic plugin layer encapsulates common capabilities shared by various industry types, such as general chapter templates and general format checks; the construction industry plugin layer encapsulates differentiated capabilities based on industry type, such as a cleanroom construction organization chapter, medical-specific electromechanical coordination knowledge routing, and hospital scene image library tags for hospital engineering; the regional plugin layer encapsulates local mandatory rules, such as local requirements for the depth of construction organization design in a particular province; and the project-specific plugin layer encapsulates specific capabilities applicable only to the current project. Search keys are used hierarchically: the construction industry plugin layer is searched based on the construction industry category; when regional information and specific system information are recorded in the profile, the regional plugin layer is searched based on the regional information; the project-specific plugin layer is searched based on the specific system information and the specific requirements explicitly stated in the bidding constraint set; plugins in the basic plugin layer directly enter the candidate set as public capability candidates. Search methods can include inverted tag search, numerical range filtering, and vector similarity search, adapted to tag-based, numerical, and semantic search keys, respectively.

[0065] Step S1032: Save matching traces for each candidate plugin.

[0066] The system saves the fields of the matching building industry profile, the identifier of the matching bidding constraints, and the identifier of supporting evidence for each candidate plugin, and incorporates the saved content into the evidence index. Therefore, the reason why a plugin becomes a candidate can be directly traced back to the fields of the building industry profile and the original bidding document—a substantial difference from simply matching templates based on abstract project types. Every item in the candidate set is verifiable, providing a ready-made chain of evidence for verifying the applicability of plugins during the review phase.

[0067] In one embodiment, step S104 may specifically include steps S1041 to S1043.

[0068] Step S1041: Perform validation of the candidate plugin's scope of application, input data mode, and interface capabilities.

[0069] The scope of application verification compares the candidate plugin's declared applicable business types, regions, project scales, and structural types against the specific system conditions item by item. If any necessary dimension is not covered, the plugin fails. The input data pattern verification checks whether the input fields and data structures required for the candidate plugin's operation can be provided by the bidding constraint set. Pattern verification can use, for example, a structured schema description file and its equivalent verification methods. The interface capability verification checks whether the technical interfaces to be bound are all among the interfaces implemented in the candidate plugin's declaration. These three verifications collectively answer one question: Can this plugin function properly in the current project and at the current stage?

[0070] Step S1042: Perform dependency verification on the candidate plugins.

[0071] Dependency verification checks whether the plugins that candidate plugins depend on, their semantic versions, and whether the namespaces and data structure versions are compatible. The dependencies between plugins can be organized as a directed acyclic graph. The loading order is determined by topological sorting, and circular dependencies are eliminated through circular dependency detection to prevent loading deadlocks from being exposed at runtime.

[0072] Step S1043: Output rejection information for candidate plugins that fail the verification, and select alternative plugins according to the preset downgrade strategy.

[0073] When a candidate plugin fails validation, the system outputs the rejection reason, failure fields, required value, actual value, and corresponding evidence identifier. This output is recorded as an applicability validation record and encapsulated in a unified configuration – explaining why a plugin wasn't enabled is just as traceable as explaining why it was enabled. Subsequently, a previous stable version plugin, a replacement plugin at the same layer, or a plugin from the basic plugin layer is selected as a new candidate plugin according to a preset downgrade strategy and re-enters the applicability validation process. For example, if version 1.1.2 of the hospital engineering business module plugin is rejected due to data structure version incompatibility, the downgrade chain can sequentially try version 1.1.0, then the general medical engineering plugin at the same layer, until the general plugin at the basic plugin layer. The configuration process is not interrupted by the failure of a single plugin.

[0074] Through the above steps, candidate plugins that pass the suitability verification are included in the set of applicable plugins; candidate plugins that fail the suitability verification are not enabled, and their verification failures are transformed into recorded and traceable degradation decisions, thereby improving the robustness and auditability of the configuration process.

[0075] In one embodiment, the multiple technical specification processing interfaces may specifically include nine interfaces: a catalog generation interface, a task decomposition interface, a knowledge base routing interface, a prompt word construction interface, a text and image adaptation interface, a formatting and layout interface, a rejection check interface, a rationality verification interface, and a post-processing interface. The candidate rule sets for each interface have different focuses: the candidate rule set for the catalog generation interface includes chapter templates and scoring item mapping rules; the candidate rule sets for the knowledge base routing interface and the prompt word construction interface include routing rules for construction processes, standards, and cases; the candidate rule set for the text and image adaptation interface includes library tags and illustration condition rules; the candidate rule set for the formatting and layout interface includes rules for blind marking, page numbers, fonts, and table requirements; and the candidate rule sets for the rejection check interface and the rationality verification interface include rules for veto items, mandatory response items, business type omission items, and parameter rationality thresholds.

[0076] When establishing a set of candidate rules, each candidate rule records at least the plugin level to which its source plugin belongs, the applicable bidding constraints, and the associated evidence identifier. The plugin level is used by the lexicographical order decision when comparing plugin level priorities; the applicable bidding constraints establish an explicit link between the rule and the explicit bidding requirements, providing a direct data path for the lexicographical order decision to determine explicit mandatory requirements; and the associated evidence identifier serves as the basis for the effectiveness of the evidence access verification rule. With this record, the same applicable plugin only takes effect on the technical bid processing interface that has passed the applicability verification, breaking the coarse-grained nature of plugin capabilities taking effect across the entire package, and refining the rule's scope to the interface level; if any valid rule is challenged in the future, its source level and original supporting text can be provided immediately.

[0077] In one embodiment, see Figure 2The above step S106 may specifically include steps S1061 to S1063; wherein, conflict type identification is performed after evidence access and before lexicographical order decision, and step S1063 completes the classification and handling according to the identified conflict type.

[0078] Step S1061: Apply evidence admission to the candidate rules and calculate the evidence admission value.

[0079] For a candidate rule r acting on target key k under interface i, the evidence admission value G(r,i,k) can be calculated. G is the product of five factors: pattern consistency factor, scope coverage factor, dependency satisfaction factor, evidence validity factor, and evidence timeliness factor. Each factor takes a value of 1 or 0. The pattern consistency factor indicates whether the data pattern of the candidate rule is consistent with the input and output pattern of the interface. The scope coverage factor indicates whether the applicable business type, region, scale, and special conditions of the candidate rule cover the construction industry profile. The dependency satisfaction factor indicates whether the plugins and versions that the source plugin of the candidate rule depends on meet the requirements. The evidence validity factor indicates whether the fields of the bidding constraints or construction industry profile associated with the candidate rule have evidence identifiers, and whether the content pointed to by the evidence identifiers can support the corresponding candidate rule. The evidence timeliness factor indicates whether the associated evidence has not been replaced by updated data. The product form is used because the five conditions are mutually exclusive rather than mutually compensatory—if any factor is zero, the product is zero, and the rule will not be considered as a candidate rule for evidence admission in the lexicographical order decision. Rules excluded due to missing or invalid evidence can be marked as suspended for future reference instead of being directly deleted, and can be reinstated once the evidence is complete.

[0080] Step S1062: Identify the conflict types among candidate rules that have passed the evidence admission, and make a lexicographical order decision for candidate rules that have mutually exclusive or overlapping conflicts according to a preset priority order.

[0081] The preset priority order, from highest to lowest, is as follows: explicit mandatory requirements in the tender documents, update requirements in addenda or clarifications in the tender documents, manually locked configurations with evidentiary identifiers, rules at the project-specific plug-in layer, rules at the regional plug-in layer, rules at the building type plug-in layer, and rules at the basic plug-in layer. Addenda and clarifications take precedence over the general requirements of the original tender documents because they constitute updates to the original text in terms of both timeliness and validity. Manually locked configurations require evidentiary identifiers to prevent unfounded human intervention from breaking the chain of evidence—manual configurations lacking evidentiary support cannot obtain high priority based on human identity. The four plug-in layers are arranged in descending order of project-specific, regional, building type, and basic, reflecting that rules closer to the current project have higher priority. The profile and constraint matching confidence score is used to characterize the joint matching degree between candidate rules and the building industry profile and bidding constraints. It is obtained by normalizing the profile field matching result and the bidding constraint matching result to [0,1] and then summing them according to preset weights, and the sum of the weights is 1. When only one matching result is available, the available item is used according to the preset missing rule and the missing status is recorded, or it is transferred to manual confirmation. When both matching results are missing or no missing rule is configured, automatic final decision is not executed and it is transferred to manual confirmation. The profile and constraint matching confidence score only participates in the last-place comparison when the aforementioned components are completely identical. If the last-place components are still identical, a parallel decision item is generated and it is transferred to manual confirmation. In the specific comparison, a priority vector can be constructed for each candidate rule that passes the evidence admission. The components of the vector, from front to back, are the bidding explicit mandatory level, data update level, manual locking mark with evidence identification, plug-in level, rule version that meets the dependency conditions, and profile and constraint matching confidence score. The comparison is carried out from left to right. If the previous component is not equal, the next component is not compared. The candidate rule with the highest lexicographical order is selected to obtain the effective rule for the target key. As explained in the overall process, lexicographical order decision can also be achieved by comparing values ​​of significantly different magnitudes. In practice, the magnitude difference between adjacent values ​​can be more than two orders of magnitude to ensure that the value of the higher-level position is sufficient to overpower the sum of all the values ​​of the lower-level positions.

[0082] Step S1063: Classify and handle the conflict according to the identified conflict type.

[0083] Conflicts can be categorized into mutual exclusion conflicts, overriding conflicts, and merge conflicts. Each identified conflict is limited to a specific interface name, target field, or target rule key, rather than being declared as a conflict across plugins in general. For candidate rules with merge conflicts, set union, threshold tightening, or chapter tree merging with source tags are performed. Threshold tightening is performed according to the pre-registered threshold direction and unit of measurement for the target rule key: the smaller value is used when the threshold represents the upper limit, and the larger value is used when it represents the lower limit; if the units of measurement or constraint semantics are inconsistent, they are not automatically merged but are converted to mutual exclusion conflicts or manual confirmation. Specifically, when two plugins request the addition of different chapters, the chapter trees are merged according to the source tag instead of choosing one of the two; when threshold-type rules coexist, the stricter value is used. For candidate rules with mutual exclusion or overriding conflicts, the higher-ranking rule determined according to a preset priority order is selected and the overridden rule is retained—retaining rather than discarding is to ensure a complete reconstruction of the decision-making process during review and tracing.

[0084] Evidence-based access excludes rules without evidence from decision-making, and conflict type identification determines whether to use selective or merging processing. For mutually exclusive and overlapping conflicts, lexicographical order decision-making follows a fixed order of selection rules led by the explicit requirements of the tender. For merging conflicts, merging processing is performed according to the target rule key. The result of conflict processing is thus directly constrained by the original tender document and its version, and the decision basis is verifiable and the decision process is reproducible. Compared with the processing of selecting templates based on label priority or general scoring, the channel where the explicit requirements of the tender are covered by general rules is completely closed.

[0085] In one embodiment, in addition to the interface binding, valid rules, and evidence index defined in step S107, the unified configuration can also encapsulate the version information of each applicable plugin in the applicable plugin set. The version information records the plugin level to which the applicable plugin belongs and the applicability verification result. Combined with the applicability verification record formed in step S1043, the unified configuration provides a complete explanation of why each plugin is included in the applicable plugin set or is not enabled, with which version it is enabled, and what verifications it has undergone. The process trajectory is another type of content worth encapsulating: the conflict decision trajectory recorded during the conflict resolution process includes the decision basis and evidence identifier, such as recording the candidate rules being compared, the selected rules, the rules being covered, and the priority components on which the decision is based. The unified configuration also includes a review trajectory, which is reserved during encapsulation and filled in by the subsequent correction and write-back stage—when correcting the affected parameters and writing back, the correction identifier, error type, affected path, values ​​before and after correction, evidence identifier, and operation subject are written into the review trajectory.

[0086] Taking a hospital complex project as an example, a valid rule and a conflict decision trajectory in the unified configuration can take the form of: adding a chapter on construction organization of hospital clean areas and coordination of medical special electromechanical systems under the valid rule record directory generation interface, sourced from the hospital engineering business plugin version 1.1.2, and associated with the evidence block in the Q&A clarification; on the target key of the body text font in the conflict decision trajectory record format layout interface, the font requirement of the bid document's hidden bid wins, and the default font of the basic plugin is overridden, with the decision basis being the explicit requirement of the bid document taking precedence.

[0087] After the static content of the configuration and the dynamic process of decision-making and correction are combined in the same unified configuration, the configuration level generated by the technical standard has a complete self-explanatory capability for the first time: any output can answer what it is based on, why it is the one and not another candidate, and what was changed in the process.

[0088] In one embodiment, see Figure 3 The evidence review in step S108 can specifically include steps S1081 to S1084, and these four steps can be executed in parallel.

[0089] Step S1081: Perform an integrity check to determine whether the key fields of the building industry profile, the mandatory bidding constraints, and the valid rules all have evidence indexes.

[0090] Integrity verification prevents unsubstantiated content from being mixed into the output—any business content that will be used downstream and requires bidding basis will fail in this sub-step if the corresponding original bidding anchor cannot be found in the evidence index; system fields such as plugin version, interface binding, process trace and configuration snapshot identifier will be checked to see if they have corresponding plugin registration information, system configuration records or process records.

[0091] Step S1082: Perform a consistency check to determine whether there are any contradictions between the building industry profile, the applicable scope of each applicable plugin in the applicable plugin set, the interface binding, and the valid rules.

[0092] For example, if the profile type is a hospital, but a certain interface is bound to the rules of the school type plugin, this is a consistency failure; cases where the plugin's scope declaration conflicts with the profile fields and is not caught by the verification process are also covered here.

[0093] Step S1083: Perform timeliness verification. Based on the version information of the bidding documents and plug-in rules, as well as the original clause identifier, function type and scope of application pointed to by the updated documents, confirm the evidence that the valid rules refer to the currently valid evidence.

[0094] It is a common mistake in bidding practice to continue using the old, superseded clauses in the configuration after the release of addenda or Q&A documents. This sub-step checks the updated information against the original clauses in terms of their target relevance, type of function, scope of application, and version information; for clauses where substitution is valid, the rules citing the replaced evidence are marked; for clauses that are only supplementary or clarifying, the original evidence is retained and the updated content is included in the chain of evidence.

[0095] Step S1084: Perform coverage verification, traverse the scoring items, mandatory response clauses, blind bidding requirements and key construction contents specific to the business type in the bidding constraint set, and query whether each bidding constraint has established a response mapping with at least one valid rule of the technical bid processing interface based on the evidence index; compare the set of responsive constraints with the set of responded constraints to obtain the set of unresponsive constraints composed of bidding constraints that have not yet established a response mapping.

[0096] Coverage verification prevents missing responses—if the cleanroom engineering-specific scoring item in the scoring method is not responded to by any valid rule of the interface, this sub-step will report a failure.

[0097] The review items can also be distinguished into mandatory items and prompt items: the system determines the unified configuration evidence review result based on the verification results of each review item. If the verification result of any mandatory item is unsuccessful, the unified configuration evidence review result is determined to be unsuccessful and proceeds to step S109; if the verification results of all mandatory items are successful, the unified configuration evidence review result is determined to be successful; if the verification result of a prompt item is unsuccessful, it is only recorded for manual reference. Each review item can record the field path, the name of the interface involved, the evidence identifier, the verification type, the verification result, the error type, and the expected and actual values, providing a complete problem description for the correction process. The four types of verifications respectively squeeze the configuration quality from four directions: evidence-based, no contradictions, sufficient novelty, and no omissions. Any gap in any direction will be explicitly exposed as a review item with an error type; when the evidence review result is unsuccessful, the object of action is thus narrowed from the entire configuration to each locatable review item that failed verification.

[0098] See also Figure 3 The above step S109 may specifically include steps S1091 to S1093.

[0099] Step S1091: Route the failed verification items to the corresponding correction steps according to the error type.

[0100] When the error type is a profile error, re-identify the building industry type and update the building industry type profile; when the error type is a constraint error, relocate the clause evidence in the bidding documents and update the corresponding bidding constraints; when the error type is a plugin scope error, re-execute plugin matching and applicability checks; when the error type is a dependency error, adjust or replace the version of the corresponding plugin and re-execute applicability checks; when the error type is an interface binding error, only rebuild the candidate rule set of the affected technical bid processing interface; when the error type is a rule conflict error, re-execute the conflict resolution of the corresponding technical bid processing interface based on the newly added or updated evidence; when the error type is missing evidence, supplement the evidence index or transfer it to manual confirmation. When the error type is output overwrite error, the system retrieves registered plugins and their rules that can provide the corresponding rules from the plugin registry based on the identifier of the unresponsive bidding constraints. For the retrieved rules, the applicability of the plugin to which they belong is first verified, and then the interface splitting rules are processed according to the technical specifications and included in the candidate rule set of the corresponding interface. Evidence admission and conflict resolution are then performed sequentially within the candidate rule set. If no usable rules are found, rules to be registered are formed based on the unresponsive bidding constraints. The rule source, version, and scope of application are recorded, and evidence is bound to them. After registering them to the corresponding plugin, plugin applicability verification, rule splitting, and inclusion in the candidate rule set of the corresponding interface are performed sequentially. Evidence admission and conflict resolution are then performed within the candidate rule set. Each of the eight types of errors has its own dedicated handling action, and they are independent of each other—interface binding errors only affect a single interface, while profiling errors return to the identification source.

[0101] Step S1092: Correct the affected parameters with field-level patches and perform incremental recalculation only on the affected technical specification processing interfaces.

[0102] Field-level patches only modify the erroneous field itself, and incremental recalculation only covers the affected interfaces, while unrelated interfaces remain unchanged. As a result, the cost of correction is reduced from a full process rerun to a partial recalculation.

[0103] Step S1093: Write back the parameters that have been reviewed and approved, and re-execute the evidence review.

[0104] During the write-back process, only the verified portrait feature parameters, constraint extraction parameters, plugin applicability parameters, or interface rule parameters are written back to the corresponding storage locations. "Verified" means that the verification item corresponding to the parameter has passed the review after correction. Unverified intermediate values ​​must not be stored in the database to prevent the correction process itself from contaminating the storage. After the write-back is completed, the process returns to step S108 until the evidence verification result is passed.

[0105] All corrective actions are recorded in the review process, which is connected to the aforementioned conflict decision-making process, thus balancing the efficiency and auditability of the corrective actions.

[0106] In one embodiment, step S110 may specifically include steps S1101 and S1102.

[0107] Step S1101: The unified configuration is classified and stored, and then provided to the technical specification generation module for reading.

[0108] The unified configuration can be stored according to content characteristics: the relational database stores structured content such as building industry profiles, bidding constraints, plugin versions, applicability verification records, interface bindings, valid rules, conflict decisions, and review trajectories; the vector library stores content required for semantic retrieval, such as clause vectors, profile vectors, and knowledge base routing vectors; and the file object storage stores content in file form, such as original data and plugin adaptation reports. Once storage is complete, the system provides the unified configuration to the technical bid generation module for reading via interface calls or configuration files.

[0109] Step S1102: Save the configuration snapshot identifier of the unified configuration and the versions of each evidence source referenced by the unified configuration.

[0110] The technical bid generation module can reproduce the corresponding plugin selection, rule decision-making, and review process based on the configuration snapshot identifier. For bid review, quality traceability, and dispute resolution, this reproducibility ensures that the question of why the configuration was set up in that way can always be answered with evidence. When resubmitting the same project or referencing similar projects, incremental adjustments can be made based on existing snapshots, rather than starting from scratch.

[0111] The effective rules and conflict decision trajectories of the aforementioned hospital complex project only show partial configuration results. The following further illustrates the method implementation of this application by taking the complete configuration process of the project as an example.

[0112] In this exemplary scenario, a hospital complex project adopts a structural form combining steel and concrete structures. After the bidding documents are entered into the technical bid generation system, the system identifies the building type as a hospital from the project name and engineering overview table. The scenario tags include outpatient medical technology, clean area, complex electromechanical system, and renovation without stopping outpatient services. The confidence level for identifying the hospital type is, for example, 0.89. The profile also records the evidence block number pointing to the original text of the bidding announcement and engineering overview table.

[0113] During the constraint extraction phase, a new explicitly mandatory constraint was extracted from the second edition of the Q&A clarification: the technical specifications must include a separate chapter on medical-specific electromechanical coordination. This constraint is recorded as explicitly mandatory, originating from the second edition of the Q&A clarification, and includes evidence pointing to this specific Q&A item. It also records its target clause identifier, its supplementary function, and its applicable scope as the technical specifications catalog and the medical-specific electromechanical coordination chapter for this project. Since this Q&A content is supplementary rather than a substitute, the original clause evidence is retained, and the new requirement is incorporated into the chain of evidence.

[0114] The joint matching process identified three candidate plugins: Technical Bidding Basic Plugin version 1.4.0, Hospital Engineering Business Format Plugin version 1.1.2, and Regional Rules Plugin version 1.0.3. The matching log for the Hospital Engineering Business Format plugin was based on the Hospital Business Format field in the user profile and the aforementioned explicit mandatory constraints. Under the data structure version used in this project, all three candidate plugins passed the validations for scope of application, input data mode, interface capabilities, and dependencies. For the Hospital Engineering Business Format plugin, the normalized value of the profile field matching result was 0.89, and the normalized value of the bidding constraint matching result was 1.00. With a preset weight of 0.5 for both, the confidence level for profile and constraint matching was 0.945.

[0115] After the three plugins pass the applicability verification, their rules are split according to the technical specification processing interface. The catalog generation interface obtains the hospital clean area construction organization chapter rules provided by the hospital engineering business plugin, as well as the medical-specific electromechanical coordination chapter rules responding to the aforementioned explicit mandatory constraints; the two rules are respectively associated with the original evidence of the hospital profile and the clarification evidence in the Q&A. After confirming that both rules have valid evidence, the system identifies them as a merging conflict targeting different chapter nodes, and performs chapter tree merging according to the source mark, so that both rules enter the valid rule set of the catalog generation interface. Among them, in the priority vector of the medical-specific electromechanical coordination chapter rules, the explicit mandatory level of the tender is set to the highest level, the plugin level is the building business plugin layer, and the profile and constraint matching confidence is 0.945.

[0116] The formatting interface simultaneously obtains the regular font rules generated by the basic plugin based on the general format clauses of the tender documents, as well as the sealed-bid font rules associated with the specific sealed-bid clauses in the relevant tender documents. After both rules for evidence access confirmation have valid tender evidence supporting the corresponding body text font target key, the system identifies them as an overriding conflict and performs a lexicographical order decision. Because the explicit mandatory requirements of the tender have a higher priority than the priority between plugin levels, the sealed-bid font rules are selected as the valid rules, while the regular font rules of the basic plugin are retained as the overridden rules, and written into the conflict decision trajectory along with the decision basis and evidence identifier.

[0117] After unified configuration and encapsulation, evidence review revealed a coverage failure: the green construction scoring item in the scoring method had not been responded to by any valid rule of the technical bid processing interface, and the error type marked on the review item was output coverage error. The system routes this failure item to the corresponding correction stage, and retrieves registered plugins and their rules that can provide the corresponding rules from the plugin registry based on the bidding constraint identifier of the scoring item; for the green construction chapter template and corresponding inspection rules retrieved that have source version, scope of application and evidence identifier, the applicability of the plugin to which it belongs is first verified, and then the rules are split according to the technical bid processing interface and included in the candidate rule set of the affected directory generation interface and rationality verification interface. Evidence admission and conflict resolution are performed sequentially within the candidate rule set; after the correction record is written into the review trajectory, the system re-executes the evidence review and determines that the evidence review result is passed.

[0118] Ultimately, the unified configuration output includes recommended chapters covering overall construction deployment, hospital clean area construction organization, medical-specific electromechanical coordination, green construction, schedule planning, and quality, safety, and civilized construction. The knowledge base routing points to the enterprise's hospital project case library, clean area engineering construction process library, and electromechanical integrated pipeline knowledge base. The image library tags include hospital lobby, clean corridor, electromechanical pipeline integration, and medical-specific equipment. Inspection rules include blind bidding format checks, clean area-specific omission checks, and veto item evidence checks. The technical bid generation module generates technical bids according to this configuration. The chapter settings, format requirements, and inspection items driven by bidding constraints can be retrieved from the original bidding documents via the evidence index. The knowledge base routing, image library tags, and industry-specific inspection items derived from the building industry profile and industry plugins can be retrieved to the corresponding profile evidence and plugin registration information. Plugin versions, interface bindings, conflict decision trajectories, review trajectories, and configuration snapshot identifiers can be retrieved from system configuration records or process records.

[0119] In practical deployment, this method can be manifested as a technical specification intelligent compilation platform operated by construction companies or software service providers. The platform's plugin management interface displays the hierarchy, version, and scope of application of each plugin. The configuration export file carries interface binding, valid rules, and evidence index fields. The review report interface displays each review item and its handling record, and provides the function of reproducing historical configurations according to the configuration snapshot identifier.

[0120] As can be seen from the above scenarios, the newly added medical-specific electromechanical coordination chapter in the Q&A clarification is required to be included in the catalog configuration; the explicit requirement of the font of the blind mark in the bidding documents takes precedence over the regular font rules of the basic plug-in; omissions in the scoring items are reviewed and found before output and supplemented by partial recalculation; the hospital-specific chapters, knowledge routes and inspection items are included in the unified configuration along with the plug-in adaptation; and the compliance, traceability and processing efficiency of the technical bid preparation are all specifically reflected in this scenario.

[0121] Taking the expansion of new building business types as an example, after the system already supports the hospital business type, when adding the electronics factory business type, the implementation personnel only need to supplement the business type characteristic words of the electronics factory, add the electronics factory business type plug-in and register its applicable scope, interface capabilities and dependency declarations, and then configure business type rules such as cleanroom process routing, anti-vibration and anti-static inspection items for the corresponding interface; the processing logic, interface definition and program framework of the main process such as profile construction, joint matching, applicability verification, evidence access, conflict classification and handling, evidence review and error correction do not need to be changed. The access cost of new business types is limited to the incremental supply of plug-ins and rules, which is a direct manifestation of the plug-in extension architecture of this application embodiment.

[0122] This application also provides a multi-format generation and configuration device for building engineering technical bids. This device is used to execute the multi-format generation and configuration method for building engineering technical bids described in the foregoing embodiments. The implementation details and technical effects of the device can be referred to the relevant descriptions of the foregoing method embodiments, and repeated details will not be repeated.

[0123] See Figure 4 The figure is a schematic diagram of the structure of the multi-format generation and configuration device for architectural engineering technical specifications provided in an embodiment of this application. For example... Figure 4 As shown, the multi-format generation and configuration device 400 for architectural engineering technical specifications includes a profile construction module 401, a constraint extraction module 402, a plug-in matching module 403, an applicability verification module 404, a rule binding module 405, a conflict resolution module 406, a configuration encapsulation module 407, an evidence review module 408, a correction and write-back module 409, and a configuration output module 410. The specific details of each module are as follows:

[0124] The profile building module is used to obtain bidding documents for construction projects, identify construction types from the bidding documents, and build a profile of the construction type. The profile of the construction type includes at least the construction type category and an evidence identifier pointing to the original text location in the bidding documents.

[0125] The constraint extraction module is used to extract bidding constraints related to the preparation of the technical bid from the bidding documents to obtain a set of bidding constraints;

[0126] The plug-in matching module is used to match candidate plug-ins belonging to multiple plug-in levels from the plug-in registry based on the building industry profile and the bidding constraint set as joint query conditions. The multiple plug-in levels include at least the building industry plug-in level.

[0127] The applicability verification module is used to perform applicability verification on the candidate plugins to obtain a set of applicable plugins consisting of candidate plugins that have passed the applicability verification; in one embodiment, candidate plugins that have not passed the applicability verification are not enabled.

[0128] The rule binding module is used to split the rules provided by each applicable plugin in the applicable plugin set according to the technical standard processing interface, and to establish candidate rule sets for multiple technical standard processing interfaces respectively.

[0129] The conflict resolution module is used to resolve conflicts within the candidate rule set of each technical bid processing interface: first, evidence admission is performed to exclude candidate rules that do not have valid evidence or whose associated evidence has been replaced by updated information in the bidding documents; then, the conflict types of the candidate rules that have passed the evidence admission are identified and handled according to the conflict types. Among them, candidate rules with mutually exclusive or overlapping conflicts are decided by lexicographical order according to a preset priority order, and candidate rules with merging conflicts are merged to obtain the valid rules of each technical bid processing interface. In the preset priority order, the priority of the explicit mandatory requirements of the bidding is higher than the priority between the plug-in levels.

[0130] The configuration encapsulation module is used to encapsulate the interface binding of each technical bid processing interface, the effective rules, and the evidence index into a unified configuration. The evidence index establishes a mapping between the building industry profile, the bidding constraints, the effective rules, and the original text of the bidding documents.

[0131] The evidence review module is used to traverse the evidence index backwards from the output field in the unified configuration to perform verification, obtain the corresponding review items, and determine the evidence review result of the unified configuration based on the verification result of each review item. The review items that fail the verification are marked with an error type.

[0132] The correction and write-back module is used to route the failed verification items to the corresponding correction stage according to the error type when the evidence review result is unsuccessful, correct the affected parameters and write them back, and trigger the evidence review module to re-execute the evidence review on the unified configuration after the write-back when the evidence review result is unsuccessful.

[0133] The configuration output module is used to provide the unified configuration to the technical specification generation module for reading when the evidence review result is passed.

[0134] The data flow and the sequential relationship of each step in the above-mentioned device and method are consistent: the outputs of the profile construction module and the constraint extraction module are jointly supplied to the plug-in matching module. The candidate plug-ins of the plug-in matching module are verified by the applicability verification module to form an applicable plug-in set. The applicable plug-ins in the applicable plug-in set are split by the rule binding module. The conflict resolution module determines the effective rules in the candidate rule set of each interface. The configuration encapsulation module summarizes and forms a unified configuration. The evidence review module and the correction and write-back module form a review and correction closed loop. The configuration output module completes the delivery when the evidence review result is passed.

[0135] In some embodiments of this application, the above modules are further used to execute the detailed contents of the corresponding steps in the aforementioned method embodiments. For example, the profile construction module is further used to simultaneously initiate building industry type identification when obtaining bidding documents, extracting candidate industry type clues from at least one of the following: file name, project name, bidding announcement summary, project overview table, drawing catalog, and scoring method title, and retaining multiple candidate industry type categories and their respective confidence levels for projects whose industry type cannot be determined by a single factor; the constraint extraction module is further used to record the mandatory level, the document version, and the evidence identifier for each bidding constraint; the plug-in matching module is further used to perform hierarchical retrieval according to the basic plug-in layer, building industry type plug-in layer, regional plug-in layer, and project-specific plug-in layer, and save matching traces for each candidate plug-in; the applicability verification module is further used to perform scope of application, input data mode and interface capability verification, as well as dependency verification and confidence threshold verification, and in the verification process... When verification fails, the rejection reason is output and an alternative plugin is selected according to a preset downgrade strategy. The conflict resolution module is further used to calculate the evidence admission value in the form of a five-factor product, construct a priority vector according to a seven-level preset priority order, perform lexicographical order comparison, and record the conflict decision trajectory. The configuration encapsulation module is further used to encapsulate the version information and process trajectory of each applicable plugin in the set of applicable plugins in the unified configuration. The evidence review module is further used to perform four types of verification: integrity, consistency, timeliness, and coverage, and determine the evidence review result of the unified configuration based on the verification results of each review item. The correction and write-back module is further used to perform directed routing according to eight error types, correct errors by field-level patching and incremental recalculation, and write the correction record into the review trajectory. The configuration output module is further used to save the configuration snapshot identifier for reproduction. The specific implementation of each detailed content can be referred to the relevant descriptions of the aforementioned method embodiments.

[0136] This application also provides an electronic device 500, which may be a computer device. See also Figure 5 This figure is a schematic diagram of the structure of an electronic device provided in an embodiment of this application. Figure 5 As shown, the electronic device 500 includes a processor 502, an internal memory 504, a non-volatile storage medium 503, and a network interface 505 connected via a system bus 501. The non-volatile storage medium 503 stores an operating system 5031 and a computer program 5032. The internal memory provides an environment for the operation of the operating system and the computer program. The network interface is used to communicate with external devices via a network connection, such as receiving bidding documents and outputting unified configuration to the technical bid generation module.

[0137] The memory stores a computer program, and when the processor executes the computer program, it implements the steps of the multi-format generation and configuration method for construction engineering technical bids in the above embodiments. Specifically, the processor is configured to perform the following steps: obtain the bidding documents of the construction project; identify the construction format from the bidding documents and construct a construction format profile; extract bidding constraints related to the preparation of technical bids from the bidding documents to obtain a set of bidding constraints; use the construction format profile and the set of bidding constraints as joint query conditions to match candidate plugins belonging to multiple plugin levels from the plugin registry; perform applicability verification on the candidate plugins to obtain a set of applicable plugins composed of candidate plugins that have passed the applicability verification; split the rules provided by each applicable plugin in the set of applicable plugins according to the technical bid processing interface, and target multiple technical bids... Each technical standard processing interface establishes a candidate rule set; conflict resolution is performed within the candidate rule set of each technical standard processing interface; the interface bindings, valid rules, and evidence indexes of each technical standard processing interface are encapsulated into a unified configuration; the evidence index is traversed backwards from the output field in the unified configuration for verification to obtain review items, and the evidence review result of the unified configuration is determined based on the verification results of each review item; if the evidence review result is unsuccessful, the error type is routed for correction and written back, and the evidence review is re-executed on the unified configuration after writing back; if the evidence review result is successful, the unified configuration is provided to the technical standard generation module for reading. In some implementations, the processor is also configured to execute any of the refined steps in the aforementioned method embodiments.

[0138] The processor can be a central processing unit, a digital signal processor, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or other programmable logic devices. Memory can include volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM), or non-volatile memory, such as read-only memory (ROM), flash memory, hard disks (HDDs), or solid-state drives (SSDs). Electronic devices can be standalone servers, server clusters consisting of multiple servers, or cloud service nodes; their specific form can be selected based on the deployment requirements of the technical specification generation system.

[0139] This application also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program. When executed by a processor, the computer program implements the steps of the multi-format generation and configuration method for architectural engineering technical specifications described in the above embodiments. The computer-readable storage medium can be any medium capable of storing a computer program, such as a USB flash drive, portable hard drive, read-only memory, random access memory, magnetic disk, or optical disk, etc., and other media capable of storing program code.

[0140] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the modules or units and algorithm steps of the various examples described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in electronic hardware, computer software, or a combination of both. To clearly illustrate the interchangeability of hardware and software, the composition and steps of the various examples have been generally described in terms of functionality in the foregoing description. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution. Those skilled in the art can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementation should not be considered beyond the scope of this application.

[0141] In the several embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed apparatus and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the apparatus embodiments described above are merely illustrative. For example, the division of each unit is merely a logical functional division, and there may be other division methods in actual implementation. For example, multiple units or components may be combined or integrated into another system, or some features may be ignored or not executed.

[0142] The steps in the methods of this application embodiment can be adjusted, merged, or deleted according to actual needs. The units in the apparatus of this application embodiment can be merged, divided, or deleted according to actual needs. Furthermore, the functional units in the various embodiments of this application can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit.

[0143] If the integrated unit is implemented as a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this application, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or all or part of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions to cause an electronic device (which may be a personal computer, a terminal, or a network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of this application.

[0144] The above description is merely a specific embodiment of this application, but the scope of protection of this application is not limited thereto. Any person skilled in the art can easily conceive of various equivalent modifications or substitutions within the technical scope disclosed in this application, and these modifications or substitutions should all be covered within the scope of protection of this application. Therefore, the scope of protection of this application should be determined by the scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for generating and configuring multi-format building engineering technical standards, characterized in that, include: Obtain bidding documents for construction projects, identify construction types from the bidding documents, and construct a construction type profile. The construction type profile includes at least the construction type category and evidence markers pointing to the original text location in the bidding documents. Extract the bidding constraints related to the preparation of the technical bid from the bidding documents to obtain a set of bidding constraints; Using the building industry profile and the bidding constraint set as joint query conditions, candidate plugins belonging to multiple plugin levels are matched from the plugin registry, wherein the multiple plugin levels include at least the building industry plugin level; The candidate plugins are subjected to applicability verification to obtain a set of applicable plugins consisting of the candidate plugins that have passed the applicability verification. The rules provided by each applicable plugin in the applicable plugin set are split according to the technical standard processing interface, and candidate rule sets are established for each of the multiple technical standard processing interfaces. Conflict resolution is performed within the candidate rule set of each technical bid processing interface: First, evidence admission is performed to exclude candidate rules that do not have valid evidence or whose associated evidence has been replaced by updated information in the bidding documents; then, the conflict types of the candidate rules that have passed the evidence admission are identified and handled according to the conflict types. Among them, candidate rules with mutual exclusion conflicts or covering conflicts are decided by lexicographical order according to a preset priority order, and candidate rules with merging conflicts are merged to obtain the valid rules of each technical bid processing interface. In the preset priority order, the priority of the explicit mandatory requirements of the bidding is higher than the priority between the plug-in levels. The interface bindings of each technical bid processing interface, the effective rules, and the evidence index are encapsulated into a unified configuration. The evidence index establishes a mapping between the building industry profile, the bidding constraints, the effective rules, and the original text of the bidding documents. Starting from the output field in the unified configuration, the evidence index is traversed in reverse to perform verification, and the corresponding review items are obtained. The evidence review result of the unified configuration is determined according to the verification result of each review item. The review items that fail the verification are marked with an error type. When the evidence review result is unsuccessful, the unsuccessful review item is routed to the corresponding correction step according to the error type, the affected parameters are corrected and written back, and the unified configuration after writing back is re-executed for evidence review; when the evidence review result is successful, the unified configuration is provided to the technical specification generation module for reading.

2. The method for generating and configuring multi-format building engineering technical standards according to claim 1, characterized in that, The multiple plugin layers also include a basic plugin layer, a regional plugin layer, and a project-specific plugin layer; the architectural industry profile also includes regional information and specific system information. The matching of candidate plugins belonging to multiple plugin levels includes: retrieving candidate plugins for the building industry category plugin layer based on the building industry category; retrieving candidate plugins for the regional plugin layer based on the regional information; retrieving candidate plugins for the project-specific plugin layer based on the special system information and the special requirements explicitly stated in the tender in the tender constraint set; and using the plugins of the basic plugin layer as candidate plugins for common capabilities; saving the fields of the matched building industry profile, the identifier of the matched tender constraint, and the identifier of supporting evidence for each candidate plugin, and incorporating the saved content into the evidence index.

3. The method for generating and configuring multi-format building engineering technical standards according to claim 1, characterized in that, The evidence admission process includes: calculating an evidence admission value for each candidate rule, wherein the evidence admission value is the product of a pattern consistency factor, a scope coverage factor, a dependency satisfaction factor, an evidence validity factor, and an evidence timeliness factor; the pattern consistency factor indicates whether the data pattern of the candidate rule is consistent with the input / output pattern of the technical bid processing interface; the scope coverage factor indicates whether the applicable business type, region, scale, and specific conditions of the candidate rule cover the building industry profile; the dependency satisfaction factor indicates whether the plugins and versions on which the source plugin of the candidate rule depends are satisfied; the evidence validity factor indicates whether the bidding constraints or fields of the building industry profile associated with the candidate rule have valid evidence identifiers; and the evidence timeliness factor indicates whether the associated evidence has not been replaced by the updated data; a candidate rule with any factor being zero will not participate in the lexicographical order decision as a candidate rule that passes the evidence admission process.

4. The method for generating and configuring multi-format building engineering technical standards according to claim 2, characterized in that, The preset priority order, from highest to lowest, is as follows: explicit mandatory requirements in the tender, update requirements for supplements or clarifications in the tender documents, manually locked configurations with evidence identifiers, rules of the project-specific plug-in layer, rules of the regional plug-in layer, rules of the building industry plug-in layer, and rules of the basic plug-in layer. The lexicographical order decision includes: constructing a priority vector for each candidate rule that passes the evidence admission, wherein the components of the priority vector, from front to back, are: the level of explicit mandatory requirements in the tender, the level of document update, the manually locked marker with evidence identifiers, the plug-in level, the rule version that meets the dependency conditions, and the confidence level of profile and constraint matching; comparing the priority vectors from left to right, if the previous component is not equal, the next component is not compared, and the candidate rule with the highest lexicographical order is selected as the effective rule.

5. The method for generating and configuring multi-format building engineering technical standards according to claim 1, characterized in that, The conflict resolution further includes: identifying mutually exclusive conflicts, overriding conflicts, and merging conflicts within the candidate rule set of each technical standard processing interface, and limiting the identified conflicts to the interface name, target field, or target rule key; performing set union, threshold tightening, or chapter tree merging with source tags on candidate rules with merging conflicts; selecting the higher-order rule determined according to the preset priority order and retaining the overridden rule for candidate rules with mutually exclusive or overriding conflicts; and recording the conflict decision trajectory including decision basis, candidate rules, the effective rule, the overridden rule, and evidence identifier.

6. The method for generating and configuring multi-format building engineering technical standards according to claim 1, characterized in that, The evidence review includes integrity verification, consistency verification, timeliness verification, and coverage verification. The integrity verification determines whether the key fields of the building industry profile, the mandatory bidding constraints, and the valid rules all have evidence indexes. The consistency verification determines whether there are contradictions between the building industry profile, the scope of application of each applicable plugin in the applicable plugin set, the interface binding, and the valid rules. The timeliness verification compares the version times of the bidding documents and plugin rules to confirm that the valid rules reference the latest valid evidence. The coverage verification determines whether the scoring items, mandatory response clauses, blind bidding requirements, and key construction contents specific to the industry in the bidding constraint set are all responded to by valid rules of at least one technical bid processing interface.

7. The method for generating and configuring multi-format building engineering technical standards according to claim 1, characterized in that, The step of routing failed verification items to the corresponding correction steps according to the error type includes: when the error type is a profile error or a constraint error, updating the building industry profile or the bidding constraint respectively; when the error type is a plugin scope error or a dependency error, re-executing the matching and applicability verification; when the error type is an interface binding error, rebuilding only the candidate rule set of the affected technical bid processing interface; when the error type is a rule conflict error, re-executing conflict resolution only for the affected technical bid processing interface; when the error type is an output overwrite error, retrieving candidate plugins providing corresponding rules from the plugin registry based on the identifier of the unresponsive bidding constraint, performing applicability verification on the retrieved candidate plugins, and incorporating the rules provided by the candidate plugins that pass the applicability verification into the candidate rule set of the corresponding technical bid processing interface, and re-executing evidence admission and conflict resolution; when the error type is missing evidence, rebuilding the evidence index or transferring it to manual confirmation; the step of correcting the affected parameters and writing them back includes: correcting the affected parameters with field-level patches, incrementally recalculating only the affected technical bid processing interface, and writing back only the parameters that have passed verification to the corresponding storage location.

8. A multi-format generation and configuration device for architectural engineering technical standards, characterized in that, include: The profile building module is used to obtain bidding documents for construction projects, identify construction types from the bidding documents, and build a profile of the construction type. The profile of the construction type includes at least the construction type category and an evidence identifier pointing to the original text location in the bidding documents. The constraint extraction module is used to extract bidding constraints related to the preparation of the technical bid from the bidding documents to obtain a set of bidding constraints; The plug-in matching module is used to match candidate plug-ins belonging to multiple plug-in levels from the plug-in registry based on the building industry profile and the bidding constraint set as joint query conditions. The multiple plug-in levels include at least the building industry plug-in level. The applicability verification module is used to perform applicability verification on the candidate plugins to obtain an applicable plugin set consisting of the candidate plugins that have passed the applicability verification. The rule binding module is used to split the rules provided by each applicable plugin in the applicable plugin set according to the technical standard processing interface, and to establish candidate rule sets for multiple technical standard processing interfaces respectively. The conflict resolution module is used to resolve conflicts within the candidate rule set of each technical bid processing interface: first, evidence admission is performed to exclude candidate rules that do not have valid evidence or whose associated evidence has been replaced by updated information in the bidding documents; then, the conflict types of the candidate rules that have passed the evidence admission are identified and handled according to the conflict types. Among them, candidate rules with mutually exclusive or overlapping conflicts are decided by lexicographical order according to a preset priority order, and candidate rules with merging conflicts are merged to obtain the valid rules of each technical bid processing interface. In the preset priority order, the priority of the explicit mandatory requirements of the bidding is higher than the priority between the plug-in levels. The configuration encapsulation module is used to encapsulate the interface binding of each technical bid processing interface, the effective rules, and the evidence index into a unified configuration. The evidence index establishes a mapping between the building industry profile, the bidding constraints, the effective rules, and the original text of the bidding documents. The evidence review module is used to traverse the evidence index backwards from the output field in the unified configuration to perform verification, obtain the corresponding review items, and determine the evidence review result of the unified configuration based on the verification result of each review item. The review items that fail the verification are marked with an error type. The correction and write-back module is used to route the failed verification items to the corresponding correction stage according to the error type when the evidence review result is unsuccessful, correct the affected parameters and write them back, and trigger the evidence review module to re-execute the evidence review on the unified configuration after the write-back when the evidence review result is unsuccessful. The configuration output module is used to provide the unified configuration to the technical specification generation module for reading when the evidence review result is passed.

9. An electronic device, characterized in that, It includes a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program, and the processor executing the computer program to implement the construction engineering technical standard multi-format generation and configuration method as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

10. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the construction engineering technical standard multi-format generation and configuration method as described in any one of claims 1 to 7.

Images