What this category's data looks like
This category's data covers three types of materials: program plans, course syllabi, and credit structure tables. The program plan is updated by the academic affairs office per academic year and contains course names, credits, semesters offered, and signature fields; the course syllabus is submitted by the offering school per course version and contains course objectives, hour allocation, assessment methods, and the author's signature; the credit structure table is compiled by academic affairs and contains the credit counts, proportions, and review dates of each module. When the three types of materials enter the workflow, the program plan serves as the master record, the course syllabus serves as course-level evidence, and the credit structure table serves as the basis for summary verification. Parallel versions are common during a revision cycle: old syllabi are not withdrawn and new credit structure tables are not synchronized, causing the name, quantity, and date of the same course to mismatch across two materials. When the materials enter the exception tracing and manual review stage, each takes on the role of source comparison, field checking, and signature receipt verification, providing traceable original records for subsequent nodes to continue executing along branches.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by a workflow node (user selection and branching), outputting branch direction and interaction state records. The "exception list and review conclusion" is completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution along branches. When the user selection node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow state is recorded; after the user completes the selection, execution continues along the branch corresponding to the chosen option.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Program plan | Whether the course name, credits, semester offered, signature field, and date are consistent with the course syllabus; if a signature or receipt is missing, it is listed as an exception | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, trigger once and then view the node status in the run record, and reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node for a trial run |
| Course syllabus | Whether the course objectives, hour allocation, assessment methods, and author's signature match the program plan's fields and dates, and whether the version is synchronized | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, trigger once and then view the node status in the run record, and reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node for a trial run |
| Credit structure table | Whether the credit counts, proportions, and review dates of each module match the program plan and course syllabus; if the version is not synchronized, it is listed as an exception | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, trigger once and then view the node status in the run record, and reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node for a trial run |
| User selection node | Each option corresponds to one branch, the interaction state is recorded, and the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, trigger once and then view the node status in the run record, and reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node for a trial run |
Three common errors
- Symptom: the name and credit count of the same course do not match between the program plan and the course syllabus. Cause: the two materials are maintained by different schools, no field-level comparison was done during the revision, and the old syllabus was not withdrawn.
- Symptom: the review date of the credit structure table is later than the signature date of the program plan, and the versions are not synchronized. Cause: the summary step did not lock versions by revision batch, and the date order was not verified when the materials entered the workflow.
- Symptom: the course syllabus lacks the author's signature or receipt, yet the review conclusion is still submitted. Cause: the exception list was not linked item by item to the original records, the reviewer signature step was skipped, and the person in charge could not handle it.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: run a trial for each option one by one, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, and confirm that the node status corresponding to nodeId is recorded and that variables has been passed to subsequent nodes.
Business test: create one exception record and see whether it can be traced back to the source material.
- Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, trigger once and then view the node status in the run record, and confirm that the
nodeIdandvariablesreferences are correct. - Compare the program plan, course syllabus, and credit structure table field by field for names, quantities, dates, and signature receipts, list inconsistent items in the exception list, and submit it to the reviewer for signature.