What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on school safety hazard inspections and campus incident reporting. Materials include safety inspection checklists, hazard rectification ledgers, and emergency incident reports. Safety inspection checklists are filled out by inspectors by location; hazard rectification ledgers are updated by responsible persons by item; emergency incident reports are submitted immediately by the first observer by incident. When these three enter workflow orchestration, their roles differ: safety inspection checklists provide locations and dates, hazard rectification ledgers provide rectification status and signatures, and emergency incident reports provide incident details and acknowledgments. The update rhythm is daily inspection, weekly summary, and monthly verification. Field characteristics center on hazard name, quantity, discovery date, rectification deadline, signature, and acknowledgment. The same record often has mismatched names, quantities, and dates across two materials, versions are not synchronized, and signatures or acknowledgments are missing.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction state records. The "Progress Table and Statistical Scope Description" is continued and completed by subsequent nodes according to the branch. After triggering, the conversation enters an interactive 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Safety inspection checklist | Check whether hazard name, discovery date, location, and signature are consistent with the ledger | Compare the name, quantity, and date in the safety inspection checklist and the hazard rectification ledger item by item, and check the signature field; check the options and branch connections one by one in the node to confirm that options correspond to branches |
| Hazard rectification ledger | Check whether rectification status, rectification deadline, responsible person's signature, and acknowledgment are complete | Compare with the safety inspection checklist and emergency incident report, and check the name, quantity, and date of the same record; reference variables in subsequent nodes and run a trial once to confirm that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes |
| Emergency incident report | Check whether incident details, report time, first observer's signature, and acknowledgment are complete | Compare the date and quantity in the emergency incident report and the hazard rectification ledger; trigger a user selection node once, view the node status in the run record, and confirm that the interaction state is recorded |
| Progress table and statistical scope description | Check whether the record count and statistical count match and whether the scope is written in the header | Use one week of records to verify the total, check whether the scope and exceptions are clearly written; in the run record, verify the branch direction and interaction state corresponding to nodeId |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the safety inspection checklist and the hazard rectification ledger. Cause: The two materials are updated separately, versions are not synchronized, and there is no unified scope or verification.
- Phenomenon: The emergency incident report lacks a signature or acknowledgment, and the total in the progress table and statistical scope description does not match. Cause: The material circulation step is not closed-loop, and signatures and acknowledgments are not archived in sync with the records.
- Phenomenon: After selecting an option, the default branch is still taken, and the process stops after the interaction is completed. Cause: The options and branch connections were not checked one by one, and the selection result variable was not correctly passed to subsequent nodes.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: run trials for each option one by one, verify the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, and confirm that options correspond to branches, the interaction state is recorded, and the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes; reference variables in subsequent nodes and verify nodeId.
Business test: use one week of records to verify the total, and see whether the scope and exceptions are clearly written.
- In the user selection node, check the options and branch connections one by one to ensure that each option corresponds to one branch.
- Trigger a user selection node once, view the node status in the run record, and confirm that the interaction state is recorded.