What this category's data looks like
Materials for the business-basis query for undergraduate program setup and dynamic adjustment come from program setup application forms, talent cultivation plans, and expert review opinions. The application form carries the program name, code, length of study, degree-granting category, and application date; the cultivation plan carries the curriculum system, credits and class hours, and revision version; the review opinions carry the expert list, conclusions, and signed receipts. The three types of materials are updated by academic year and revision batch, and field definitions need to be compared item by item. After entering the workflow, the application form serves as the source of application facts, the cultivation plan serves as the source of cultivation arrangements, and the review opinions serve as the source of procedural compliance, each bearing the field and date basis for traceable entries, for subsequent nodes to continue processing.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branches), outputting branch directions and interaction state records. The "basis entries traceable to the original text" are completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch. When triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and records the workflow state; after the user completes the selection, execution continues along the branch corresponding to the chosen option.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup application form | Whether the fields, dates, and signatures match the cultivation plan and review opinions | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, and reference variables and nodeId in a subsequent node to do a trial run |
| Talent cultivation plan | Whether the name, quantity, and dates are consistent with the application form, and whether the version is the current one | Trigger once, check the node status in the run record, and confirm that the selected branch corresponds to the plan version |
| Expert review opinions | Whether the expert list, conclusions, signatures or receipts are complete and the dates are traceable | Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node and do a trial run, and check whether the entries can be traced back to the original text |
| Options and branches | Whether each option corresponds to one branch, and whether the selection result is passed to subsequent nodes | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, and check whether variables carries the selection result |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name or quantity of the same program does not match across two materials. Cause: applications and revisions are entered in batches, and field definitions are not unified.
- Symptom: the cultivation plan version is not synchronized, and the old curriculum and credits are still referenced. Cause: after the revision batch was updated, it was not written back to the application form and review opinions.
- Symptom: the review opinions lack signatures or receipts, and the dates cannot be traced. Cause: material archiving is incomplete, and the node status was not checked after the interaction was completed.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: run a trial for each option, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, and confirm that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes.
Business test: ask a basis question that spans materials, and see whether the answer gives a traceable source.
- Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, and confirm that each option corresponds to one branch.
- Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node and do a trial run, and check whether the entries can be traced back to the original text.