What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of investigating and handling academic misconduct reports. The materials include three categories: report materials, investigation reports, and expert appraisal opinions. Report materials enter through the acceptance channel, recording the reported person, the matter, the date, and the receipt; investigation reports are submitted by the investigation team, containing conclusions, handling recommendations, and signatures; expert appraisal opinions are issued by the expert panel, containing appraisal matters, basis, and signatures. In the progress recording and statistical verification function, these three categories of materials respectively assume the roles of source, process, and conclusion. Fields include name, quantity, date, signature, and version number. The update cadence is weekly aggregation, comparing item by item whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record across materials are consistent, checking whether version synchronization and signature receipts are complete, and forming a progress table and statistical scope statement for use in weekly or monthly reports.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the HTTP node in the workflow, outputting the response body, status code, and returned fields. The "progress table and statistical scope statement" is parsed from the response by subsequent nodes, or handled externally by an external system according to the agreement to complete the follow-up. The HTTP module sends requests to the target address. Path parameters, request body, and request headers can all use variable placeholders. Variables come from global variables, system variables, or outputs from preceding nodes.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Report materials | Record the reported person, the matter, the date, and the receipt; the fields must be consistent with the name, quantity, and date in the investigation report | Verify item by item the name and date of the same record in the two materials, check whether the receipt is complete, and verify the source of the Authorization value in the request header |
| Investigation report | The conclusions, handling recommendations, and signatures must correspond to the appraisal matters in the expert appraisal opinions, and the version number must be synchronized | Compare the name, quantity, and date of the investigation report and the expert appraisal opinions, check the signatures and version number, and verify that the request body fields are consistent with the external interface agreement |
| Expert appraisal opinions | The appraisal matters, basis, and signatures must be complete, and the date must match the conclusion date of the investigation report | Verify the signatures and dates of the appraisal opinions, check version synchronization with the investigation report, and verify the sources of variables and responseData in the variable panel |
| Progress table and statistical scope statement | The number of records must match the statistical count, the scope must be written in the header, and exceptional cases must be clearly stated | Use one week of records to verify the totals, check the header scope and exception notes, and compare the returned fields with the sample request result |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the report materials and the investigation report. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, without item-by-item comparison and version synchronization.
- Symptom: The expert appraisal opinions lack signatures or receipts, and the investigation report version is not synchronized. Cause: The material circulation step did not record the signing status, and the version number was not updated with modifications.
- Symptom: The request returns 401, and the external system receives empty fields or the request times out. Cause: The request header authentication information and request body fields were not passed in according to the external interface agreement.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: preview the rendered request, verify the status code and returned fields, then compare the result against one sample, and confirm that Authorization, variables, and responseData can all be traced to their sources.
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 request preview, view the complete rendered address, verify the request header names and value sources, and confirm that every placeholder can be traced to a specific source.
- Use one sample request to compare the response, verify that the request body fields are consistent with the external interface agreement, and check the progress table header scope and exception notes.