Description
Create a lightweight but consistent checklist to evaluate the quality of parsed output on representative course documents.
The goal is to make parser validation repeatable across samples and to quickly identify the most common failure modes before they affect chunking, retrieval, and source-grounded generation.
Scope
For each sample document, evaluate the parsed output against the following dimensions:
- text extraction quality
- slide/page segmentation
- heading/section preservation
- tables
- formulas
- image-heavy slides
- broken reading order
- missing content
Evaluation dimensions
Each document review should include brief notes and a simple rating for each of the following:
-
Text extraction quality
Is the extracted text complete, readable, and reasonably clean?
-
Slide/page segmentation
Are page and slide boundaries preserved correctly?
-
Heading/section preservation
Are titles, section headers, and hierarchical structure retained?
-
Tables
Are tables captured in a usable form, or are they broken/lost?
-
Formulas
Are formulas preserved, partially degraded, or missing?
-
Image-heavy slides
Does the parser still produce useful output when slides contain little text and mostly visuals?
-
Broken reading order
Does the extracted content follow the correct logical reading sequence?
-
Missing content
Is any obvious content missing from the parsed output?
Suggested output format
For each sample document, produce:
- document name
- file type
- parser used
- short overall quality summary
- checklist evaluation by category
- examples of major issues
- recommendation:
- acceptable for retrieval
- acceptable with cleanup
- not acceptable yet
Deliverables
- parser quality checklist template
- completed evaluations for a small set of representative sample documents
- short summary of recurring parser weaknesses
Acceptance criteria
- the checklist is clear and reusable
- at least 3–5 representative documents are evaluated
- major parser failure modes are explicitly documented
- the output is useful for both parsing and retrieval work
Description
Create a lightweight but consistent checklist to evaluate the quality of parsed output on representative course documents.
The goal is to make parser validation repeatable across samples and to quickly identify the most common failure modes before they affect chunking, retrieval, and source-grounded generation.
Scope
For each sample document, evaluate the parsed output against the following dimensions:
Evaluation dimensions
Each document review should include brief notes and a simple rating for each of the following:
Text extraction quality
Is the extracted text complete, readable, and reasonably clean?
Slide/page segmentation
Are page and slide boundaries preserved correctly?
Heading/section preservation
Are titles, section headers, and hierarchical structure retained?
Tables
Are tables captured in a usable form, or are they broken/lost?
Formulas
Are formulas preserved, partially degraded, or missing?
Image-heavy slides
Does the parser still produce useful output when slides contain little text and mostly visuals?
Broken reading order
Does the extracted content follow the correct logical reading sequence?
Missing content
Is any obvious content missing from the parsed output?
Suggested output format
For each sample document, produce:
Deliverables
Acceptance criteria