What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the student disciplinary action and appeal handling scenario. The materials include three types: disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal statements. Disciplinary fact materials record the course of conduct, time, place, and persons present; disciplinary decision documents state the basis clauses, type of disciplinary action, effective date, and delivery signature; appeal statements state the appeal request, reasons, submission date, and receipt. The fields of the three types of materials intersect: the name, quantity, and date of the same record often do not match across the two materials, versions are not synchronized, and signatures or receipts are missing. When the materials enter this function, the disciplinary fact materials provide the factual anchor, the disciplinary decision documents provide the basis clauses and effective status, and the appeal statements provide the focus of the dispute and deadline clues; together, the three support basis entries that can be traced back to the original text. The update rhythm advances according to the disciplinary process, and fact supplementation, decision changes, and appeal acceptance each trigger a new round of verification.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction state records. "Basis entries that can be traced back to the original text" are completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch. When the user selection node is triggered, the conversation enters the interaction state and records the workflow state; after the user completes the selection, execution continues along the branch corresponding to the selected option.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | Name, quantity, and date align item by item with the disciplinary decision documents and appeal statements, and signatures and receipts are complete | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, and confirm the basis query branch corresponding to the fact materials; after a trial run, view the node status and variables in the run records |
| Disciplinary decision documents | The basis clauses are the current version, and the effective date and delivery signature can be traced back to the original text | Reference the selection result variable in subsequent nodes and run a trial once to check whether the decision document version is synchronized; use nodeId to locate the branch node and check the branch direction |
| Appeal statements | The appeal request, reasons, and submission date match the original text, and the receipt is not missing | Trigger the user selection node once and check whether the interaction state is recorded; check the consistency of dates and names between the appeal statements and the fact materials and decision documents |
| User selection node | Each option corresponds to one branch, and the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes | Run a trial for each option one by one, and check the branch direction and interaction state in the run records; check for repeated entry into the interaction and the process stopping in the same session |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same disciplinary record do not match between the fact materials and the decision documents. Cause: The two materials are entered separately, and cross-material field alignment and traceback verification are not performed.
- Phenomenon: The version of the basis clauses in the disciplinary decision documents is not synchronized, and an old version was cited when replying to the parent. Cause: A new round of verification was not triggered after the materials were updated, and the version status was not refreshed as the process advanced.
- Phenomenon: The appeal statement lacks a signature or receipt, but the process still continues to execute downward. Cause: Material completeness is not used as a branch judgment condition, and the node does not intercept missing items.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: run a trial for each option one by one, and check the branch direction and interaction state in the run records; reference variables in subsequent nodes and check the branch connections corresponding to nodeId.
Business test: ask a cross-material basis question and see whether the answer provides a traceable source.
- Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch, and run a trial to view the interaction state records.
- Reference the selection result variable in subsequent nodes and run a trial once to check whether the cross-material names, quantities, dates, and signature receipts are consistent.