What this category's data looks like
In the scenario of exam question setting and grading in primary and secondary schools, the materials entering workflow orchestration include the question-setting two-way specification table, exam papers, scoring rules, as well as progress tables recorded weekly or monthly and statistical scope descriptions. The question-setting two-way specification table provides the assessed content, question type, score, question-setting date, and question-setter signature; the exam paper carries the question number, question type, score, exam date, and review signature; the scoring rules correspond to the question number, scoring points, score, approval date, and approver signature. The progress table records the start and end dates, responsible person, completion status, and receipt for each stage; the statistical scope description is written in the header, listing the number of records, aggregation scope, exceptional circumstances, and reconciliation date. The material sources are the teaching and research group, question-setting group, and examination affairs group, and the update rhythm rolls forward weekly or monthly with the progress of question setting and grading. After entering workflow orchestration, each material serves respectively as the basis for branch judgment and as the object to be further processed by subsequent nodes, and the progress table and statistical scope description are completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting the branch direction and interaction status records. The "progress table and statistical scope description" is then completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch. When the node is triggered, the conversation enters the 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Question-setting two-way specification table | The fields include assessed content, question type, score, question-setting date, and question-setter signature; the date and signature must be consistent with the exam paper | Compare the question number, question type, score, date, and signature of the specification table and the exam paper one by one, and record any inconsistencies |
| Exam paper | The fields include question number, question type, score, exam date, and review signature; the version must be synchronized with the scoring rules | Check the question number, score, date, and signature of the exam paper and the scoring rules, and check whether the versions are synchronized |
| Scoring rules | The fields include question number, scoring points, score, approval date, and approver signature; a missing signature or receipt means inconsistency | Check the question number, score, approval date, and signature of the scoring rules and the exam paper, and check whether the receipts are complete |
| Progress table and statistical scope description | The number of records and the statistical count must match; the scope must be written in the header, and exceptional circumstances must be clearly stated | Use one week's records to check the total, check whether the scope and exceptions are clearly stated, and check the header fields |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: the name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the specification table and the exam paper. Cause: the two materials are maintained separately, and no one-by-one comparison is made by the same question number and date.
- Phenomenon: the versions of the exam paper and the scoring rules are not synchronized, resulting in differences in question numbers and scores. Cause: after revision, only one material was updated, and the version and date were not checked in the node.
- Phenomenon: the specification table, exam paper, or scoring rules lack a signature or receipt. Cause: the approval step left no trace, and the progress table did not record the signature and receipt status.
How to verify the setup
This function's acceptance: run through the options one by one, check the branch direction and interaction status in the run records, and reference variables and nodeId in subsequent nodes to confirm that the selection result variable has been passed in.
Business test: use one week's records to check the total, see whether the scope and exceptions are clearly stated, and check the fields, dates, and signatures of the specification table, exam paper, and scoring rules.
- In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, trigger once, and view the node status and branch direction in the run records.
- Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node and run it once, and check whether
variablesandnodeIdfollow the corresponding branch according to the option.