What this category's data looks like
In the scenario of annual progress and acceptance of research projects, the three types of materials—annual progress reports, mid-term review materials, and acceptance reports—each play a different role: annual progress reports record task execution and phased results within a period, mid-term review materials focus on the completion of milestone objectives and adjustment explanations, and acceptance reports summarize final indicators, conclusions, and signed receipts. Material sources are mostly project team submissions, management department consolidation, and external partner returns, with an update cadence rolling by quarter, half-year, or acceptance milestone. Field characteristics center on indicator names, quantities, dates, signatures, and attachment numbers. When materials enter this function, annual progress reports are used to compare phased data, mid-term review materials are used to check milestone consistency, and acceptance reports are used to verify the final version and reference synchronization; together, the three support the maintenance of the version ledger and change records.
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 "version ledger and change records" are completed by subsequent nodes parsing the response, or by an external system handling it as agreed. The request URL, path parameters, request headers, and request body can all reference global variables, system variables, or outputs from preceding nodes via variables, and authentication information is placed in Authorization as required by the external system.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Annual progress report | Indicator names, quantities, dates, and signatures must be aligned item by item with the mid-term review materials, and the same record must not appear in two different forms | Extract the indicator fields from the report, compare them with the same-named fields in the mid-term review materials, and flag items with inconsistent names, quantities, or dates |
| Mid-term review materials | Milestone objective completion and adjustment explanations must connect with the acceptance report, and version numbers and reference relationships must be synchronized | Check whether the version number of the mid-term review materials is referenced by the acceptance report, and check whether the old version is traceable and whether references point to the current version |
| Acceptance report | Final indicators, conclusions, and signed receipts are complete; missing signatures or receipts are considered an incomplete closure | Check the signature field and receipt number, and confirm that the annual progress report and mid-term review materials referenced by the acceptance report are both current versions |
| HTTP request return | The responseData field in the response body is consistent with the external interface agreement, and the status code can determine the request result | View the fully rendered URL in the request preview, check the request header names and value sources, and compare the returned fields with a sample request |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name and quantity of the same indicator do not match between the annual progress report and the mid-term review materials. Cause: The two materials were submitted separately, and field comparison was not performed against the same version ledger as the baseline.
- Symptom: The mid-term review materials referenced by the acceptance report are still an old version, and the version number and reference are not synchronized. Cause: After a change, only one place was updated, and the reference relationship synchronization check was not triggered.
- Symptom: The signature field or receipt number is missing from the acceptance report, and the materials cannot be closed. Cause: After the external system returned the data, signatures and receipts were not completed as agreed, and subsequent nodes did not perform completeness validation.
How to verify the setup
Function acceptance: preview the rendered request, check the status code and returned fields, then compare the result against a sample to confirm that all three placeholders—Authorization, variables, and responseData—can be traced to specific sources.
Business testing: change one piece of content, see whether the version number and references are updated synchronously, and confirm that the old version remains traceable and the current version is unique.
- In the variables panel, check the source of each placeholder and confirm that the variables in the request URL, request headers, and request body can all be resolved into actual values.
- Compare the return with a sample request, check whether the external system received empty fields, and verify whether the request header names and value sources conform to the external interface agreement.