What this category's data looks like
Materials for progress records and statistical verification of undergraduate program setup and dynamic adjustment come from program setup application forms, talent cultivation plans, and expert review opinions, updated weekly or monthly. The program setup application form is the entry material, carrying the program name, code, proposed year of establishment, and the signature of the person in charge; the talent cultivation plan is the supporting material, recording the course structure, credits, and study requirements, and must correspond item by item with the application form; the expert review opinions are the conclusion material, containing the review date, list of experts, and signed receipts. After the three types of materials enter the workflow, each assumes the roles of field verification, date comparison, and signature confirmation. The name, quantity, and date of the same record must be consistent across the three materials, and the version and receipt must be synchronized.
Configuration and implementation checks
A. 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 continued and completed by subsequent nodes according to the branch.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup application form | Whether fields, dates, and signatures are complete, and whether the name and quantity are consistent with the talent cultivation plan | Verify item by item the program name, code, proposed year of establishment, signature of the person in charge, and the signing date, reference nodeId to locate the node, and compare records with the same name in the two materials |
| Talent cultivation plan | Whether the course structure, credits, and study requirements correspond to the application form, and whether the version is synchronized | Verify the course names, credits, and total class hours against the quantities in the application form, check the version number and update date, and reference variables in a subsequent node to run a trial once |
| Expert review opinions | Whether the review date, list of experts, and signed receipts are complete, and whether the conclusions are consistent with the application form | Verify the review date against the signing date of the application form, check the expert signatures and receipts, and confirm that the name, quantity, and date of the same record show no discrepancies |
| Progress table and statistical scope description | Whether the number of records matches the statistical count, whether the scope is written in the header, and whether exceptions are clearly stated | Summarize weekly records one by one, verify the totals against the subtotals, write the statistical scope and exception notes in the header, and include them in the weekly or monthly report |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name, quantity, or date of the same program does not match between two materials. Cause: The field source was not unified during entry, the version was not synchronized, and a cross-verification step was missing.
- Phenomenon: The expert review opinions lack signatures or receipts, yet the progress table still records them as completed. Cause: Advancement proceeded before the receipts were collected, and the signature status was not linked to the record status.
- Phenomenon: The statistical totals are inconsistent with the number of records, and exceptions are not clearly stated. Cause: The scope was not written in the header, and duplicate records and voided records were not separately marked.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: run trials option by option, verify the branch direction and interaction status in the run records, confirm that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes, and locate them by referencing variables and nodeId.
Business test: use one week of records to verify the totals, check whether the scope and exceptions are clearly stated, and whether the number of records matches the statistical count.
- In the node, verify the options and branch connections one by one, and trigger once to view the node status in the run records
- Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node and run a trial once to confirm that the process continues downward after the interaction is completed