What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the academic misconduct report investigation and handling category, and the materials come from report materials, investigation reports, and expert appraisal opinions. Report materials are usually provided by named or anonymous submitters and contain leads and evidence lists; investigation reports are formed by the handling institution after verification and contain conclusions and handling recommendations; expert appraisal opinions provide professional judgments on disputed facts. When the three types of materials enter the Q&A acceptance and missing-item follow-up function, their roles differ: report materials trigger the acceptance record and expose fields to be supplemented, investigation reports are used to compare the name, quantity, and date of the same record, and expert appraisal opinions are used to verify whether the basis for the conclusion is complete. The update rhythm advances with the investigation stage, and new versions may be produced at each stage of acceptance, verification, appraisal, and handling. Field characteristics are concentrated in record name, quantity, date, signature, and receipt, and each item must be checked item by item for whether it is consistent, whether it is synchronized, and whether all signatures are complete.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the HTTP node in the workflow, which outputs the response body, status code, and returned fields. The "acceptance record and items to be completed" are parsed by subsequent nodes from the response, or handled by an external system according to the agreement to continue completion. The request URL, request headers, and request body can all reference global variables, system variables, or outputs from preceding nodes through variables; authentication information is placed in Authorization according to the external system's requirements, and the returned content is carried in responseData.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Report materials | Whether the record name, quantity, date, and signature receipt correspond consistently with the investigation report | Take the two materials and compare them field by field, mark inconsistent items in name, quantity, and date, and generate a follow-up question list |
| Investigation report | Whether the version is synchronized with the expert appraisal opinion, and whether signatures or receipts are complete | Check the version number and issuance date, inspect whether the signature column and receipt are missing, and enter missing items into follow-up questions |
| Expert appraisal opinion | Whether the basis for the conclusion corresponds to the specific records in the report materials, and whether the date is traceable | Trace back to the original materials by record name and date, and mark places with insufficient basis as items to be followed up |
| HTTP request | Whether placeholder variables can be resolved into actual values, and whether the fields are consistent with the external interface agreement | View the complete rendered URL in the request preview, check the request header and request body fields, and compare the response with a sample request |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, or date of the same record does not match between the report materials and the investigation report. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, without field-by-field comparison and version synchronization.
- Phenomenon: The expert appraisal opinion has been updated, but the acceptance record still references the old version. Cause: The version was not synchronized, and there is a lack of a verification step based on the issuance date.
- Phenomenon: The investigation report lacks a signature or receipt but still enters subsequent circulation. Cause: At acceptance, signatures and receipts were not listed as mandatory check items, and missing items were not identified.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: preview the rendered request, check the status code and returned fields, then compare the result against one sample; confirm that the source of variables is traceable, that Authorization is passed in correctly, and that the responseData fields are consistent with the agreement.
Business test: submit a question that lacks key information, see whether it asks follow-up questions before answering, and confirm that the follow-up items correspond to missing fields in the report materials, investigation report, or expert appraisal opinion.
- In the variables panel, check the source of each placeholder and confirm that the placeholders in the request URL, request headers, and request body can all be resolved into actual values.
- Use one sample request to compare the returned fields, check whether the external system receives empty fields, and verify whether the status code and returned content are consistent with the agreement.