What this category's data looks like
In the general higher education institution admissions enrollment and filing scenario, the materials entering the workflow are mainly of three types: enrollment plans, filing rules, and admission rosters. Enrollment plans come from the branch-and-major-specific plans issued by the provincial admissions authorities, updated by batch and subject category, with fields including institution code, major code, planned number, required elective subjects, and type of institution; filing rules come from the filing measures issued by the provincial admissions offices and the institutions' admissions regulations, updated by batch and filing mode, with fields including filing ratio, tie-breaking sort items, major grade differential, and withdrawal conditions; admission rosters come from exports of the institutions' admissions systems, generated by round and batch, with fields including candidate number, name, filing score, major preferences, admission status, signature, and receipt. After the three types of materials enter the workflow, enrollment plans and filing rules serve as the verification baseline, and admission rosters serve as the record source, jointly supporting the generation of the progress table and the statistical scope statement.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction state records. When the user selection node is triggered, the conversation enters the interaction state and records the workflow state; after the user completes the selection, execution continues along the branch corresponding to the selected option. The "progress table and statistical scope statement" is then completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution along the branch.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enrollment plans | Check the institution code, major code, planned number, required elective subjects, issuance date, and signature receipt, and confirm that the name and quantity of the same plan are consistent across the two materials | In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, and confirm that the plan verification branch corresponds correctly; reference variables to pass the plan fields, and run a trial to see the branch direction |
| Filing rules | Check the filing ratio, tie-breaking sort items, major grade differential, withdrawal conditions, publication date, and version number, and confirm that the rule version is in sync with the current batch | In subsequent nodes, reference the selection result variable corresponding to nodeId, and run a trial to see the interaction state record; check whether the exception branch is taken when the rule version is not in sync |
| Admission rosters | Check the candidate number, name, filing score, major preferences, admission status, signature, and receipt, and confirm that the quantity and date of the same record are consistent between the roster and the progress table | Trigger the user selection node once and check the node status in the run record; check whether the number of roster records matches the statistical total, and whether exceptions are clearly documented |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same candidate do not match between the admission roster and the progress table. Cause: The two materials were entered at different points in time and were not checked against the same batch scope.
- Symptom: The filing rule version is not in sync with the current batch, and judgment is made according to the old rules. Cause: After the rules were updated, the baseline material was not synchronously replaced in the node branches.
- Symptom: The admission roster lacks a signature or receipt, but the progress table still records it as complete. Cause: Signatures and receipts were not included in branch judgment, and the interaction state record did not cover this exception.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: run trials for each option one by one, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch and that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes, and check whether variables and nodeId take effect at the reference points.
Business testing: use one week of records to check the totals, see whether the scope and exceptions are clearly documented, and confirm that the number of records matches the statistical count and that the scope is written in the table header.
- In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, and confirm that options and branches correspond one-to-one, avoiding the situation where selecting a certain option still takes the default branch.
- Trigger the user selection node once and check the node status in the run record, confirming that the process continues after the interaction is completed and that the same session does not enter the interaction repeatedly.