What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on three types of materials for enterprise independent skilled talent evaluation: the enterprise evaluation filing form, the evaluation specification, and the candidate roster. The filing form comes from the filing information submitted by the enterprise during application and is updated as policies or entities change; the evaluation specification comes from the assessment standards formulated by the evaluation agency or enterprise and is released in versions by occupation and level; the roster comes from the summary of candidate registrations and is updated on a rolling basis by batch. The three types of materials play different roles when entering the workflow: the filing form serves as the baseline for entity qualification and evaluation scope, the evaluation specification serves as the basis for assessment content and scoring criteria, and the roster serves as the details of personnel identity and application information. Field characteristics are concentrated in names, quantities, dates, and signature receipts. The name, number of people, date, and signature status of the same record in the three materials need to be compared item by item, and missing version numbers and receipts must also be included in the verification scope.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branches), outputting branch directions and interaction status records. The "discrepancy list" is continued and completed by subsequent nodes according to the branches. When the user selection node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and records the workflow status. After the user completes the selection, execution continues along the branch corresponding to the selected option.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise evaluation filing form | Whether the name, date, and signature are consistent with other materials | Verify the evaluation agency name, filing date, and seal on the filing form, and compare the corresponding fields in the evaluation specification and roster |
| Evaluation specification | Whether the version number, date, and assessment quantity are synchronized with the filing form | Verify the specification version number and release date, compare the filing date on the filing form and the batch date in the roster, and check whether the version has not been synchronized |
| Candidate roster | Whether the name, number of people, date, and signature receipt are consistent with the ledger | Verify the roster names, number of people, application date, and signature receipts item by item, and compare the same records in the filing form and evaluation specification |
| User selection node | Whether options and branches correspond item by item | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, trigger it once and view the node status in the run record, and reference variables in subsequent nodes for a trial run |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name or number of people for the same candidate does not match between the roster and the filing form. Cause: The two materials are entered in different steps, and there is a lack of item-by-item comparison using the ID number as the primary key.
- Phenomenon: The evaluation specification version is not synchronized, and the filing form still references the old version of assessment content. Cause: After the specification is updated, the version write-back and review of the filing form and roster are not triggered.
- Phenomenon: The filing form or roster lacks a signature or receipt, and the discrepancy list cannot be closed. Cause: The signature status is not recorded when materials are transferred, and the reviewer cannot confirm the responsible node.
How to verify the setup
This function acceptance: run trials option by option, check the branch direction and interaction status in the run record, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch, and reference variables and nodeId in subsequent nodes to check whether the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes.
Business test: use one real record to find fields inconsistent with the ledger, verify the name, quantity, date, and signature receipt item by item, record the discrepancy list, and submit it to the reviewer for confirmation and write-back.
- In the user selection node, check the options and branch connections one by one, trigger it once and view the node status in the run record, and confirm that the interaction status is recorded.
- Reference
variablesandnodeIdin subsequent nodes for a trial run, confirm that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes, and continue executing the discrepancy list according to the branch.