What this category's data looks like
Program setup and dynamic adjustment materials center on the program setup application form, the talent training plan, and expert review opinions. Sources are internal teaching management archives and departmental submissions, and the update cadence is synchronized with application batches and annual adjustment cycles. The program setup application form carries the proposed program name, code, degree-granting category, and responsible person's signature; the talent training plan carries the curriculum system, class hours and credits, and training objectives; the expert review opinions carry the review conclusion, expert list, and signature receipt. When the three types of materials enter the workflow, the application form serves as the anchor for the main record, the training plan serves as the comparison source for course and credit fields, and the review opinions serve as the review source for conclusion and signature fields. Field characteristics are concentrated in four categories: name, quantity, date, and signature. The same record often shows wording differences across materials, so original records must be retained for traceability.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch direction and interaction state records. The "anomaly list and review conclusion" is then completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution along the branch. When a node is triggered, 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 chosen option.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program setup application form | Name, quantity, date, and signature are consistent item by item with the talent training plan and expert review opinions | Check the application form fields against the training plan's course credits and the review opinions' conclusion date, check whether signatures and receipts are complete, and compare nodeId and variables in the run record |
| Talent training plan | Course names, class hours and credits, and training objectives have no version misalignment with the application form and review opinions | Check the plan version number and date, check whether the name and quantity of the same course correspond across the two materials, and mark an anomaly when the version is confirmed not to be synchronized |
| Expert review opinions | Review conclusion, expert list, signatures, and receipts match the application form and talent training plan | Check the opinion date and signature completeness, check whether receipts are missing, and confirm whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record fail to match between the opinions and the application form |
| User selection node | Each option corresponds to one branch, and the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes | Check options against branch connections one by one, trigger once to view the node status in the run record, and reference variables in subsequent nodes and do a trial run |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name, quantity, and date of the same record fail to match between the application form and the training plan. Cause: the two materials are filled in separately, without field-level comparison and unification.
- Symptom: versions are not synchronized, and the training plan has been revised while the application form still uses the old draft. Cause: inconsistent update cadence and lack of linked verification of version number and date.
- Symptom: missing signatures or receipts, and the signature fields of the review opinions and application form are incomplete. Cause: the submission step did not check signature and receipt fields item by item.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: run trials option by option, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, and confirm that nodeId and variables are correctly referenced in subsequent nodes.
Business test: create one anomalous record, see whether the source material can be traced, and confirm that the name, quantity, date, and signature fields can be traced back to the program setup application form, talent training plan, and expert review opinions.
- Check the options and branch connections of the user selection node one by one, and trigger once to view the node status and branch direction in the run record.
- Reference the selection result variable in subsequent nodes and do a trial run, confirming that the anomaly list and review conclusion continue execution along the branch and are handed to the responsible person for handling.