What this category's data looks like
This page addresses abnormal traceability and manual review in the graduate admissions re-examination and admission scenario, with materials drawn from three types of original records: re-examination plans, candidate score sheets, and transfer lists. Re-examination plans are updated by admission year and contain program name, re-examination ratio, score weights, and signature fields; candidate score sheets are generated by batch and contain candidate number, preliminary and re-examination scores, date, and review signature; transfer lists are updated over multiple rounds along with the transfer process and contain candidate name, transfer program, quota quantity, and receipt status. When these three types of materials enter the form input node, the re-examination plan provides the field baseline and date conventions, the candidate score sheet provides the score and signature basis, and the transfer list provides the list and quantity source, jointly supporting the field entry of the abnormal list and review conclusion.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by the form input node (interaction node) in the workflow, which outputs the field values filled in by the user (passed to subsequent nodes after submission). The "abnormal list and review conclusion" is completed afterward by subsequent nodes or manually. After the form input node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state and records the workflow state; after the user fills in the required items and submits, the form information is passed to subsequent nodes for use.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Re-examination plan | Whether the fields, dates, and signatures match those in the candidate score sheet and transfer list | Check the field names one by one in the node configuration, confirm that the program name, re-examination ratio, and date conventions are consistent, and check whether the signature fields are complete |
| Candidate score sheet | Whether the name, quantity, and date of the same candidate record are consistent across the two materials | Reference the formInputResult field in subsequent nodes and run a trial, and check whether the candidate number, scores, and review signature can be traced back to the original records |
| Transfer list | Whether the version is synchronized and whether missing signatures or receipts are recorded | Check the required settings one by one, confirm that the transfer program, quota quantity, and receipt status are marked as required, and check the field value transfer after submission |
| Form fields | One-to-one correspondence with the material fields to be collected | Check the field names one by one in the node configuration, and confirm that the userSelect and formInputResult field names correspond to the fields of the three types of materials |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, or date of the same candidate does not match between the score sheet and the transfer list. Cause: The versions of the two materials are not synchronized, and the field conventions were not uniformly checked in the form input node.
- Symptom: Abnormal records lack signatures or receipts, and the review conclusion cannot be traced back to the source materials. Cause: Key material fields were not marked as required, and there is no signature basis after submission.
- Symptom: After submission, subsequent nodes cannot retrieve the values, and the conversation stays in the interactive state. Cause: Required items can be submitted even when empty, or the field names are inconsistent with the references in subsequent nodes.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Fill in once and submit, check the field values retrieved by subsequent nodes, and confirm that both the formInputResult and selectResult field values can be transferred and that submission is impossible when required items are empty.
Business test: Create an abnormal record, see whether it can be traced back to the source materials, and check whether the fields, dates, and signatures of the re-examination plan, candidate score sheet, and transfer list are consistent.
- Check the field names one by one in the node configuration, confirm that they correspond one-to-one with the fields of the re-examination plan, candidate score sheet, and transfer list, and check the required markers.
- Reference the
formInputResultandselectResultfields in subsequent nodes and run a trial, confirm that the field values can be retrieved after submission, and that the abnormal list and review conclusion can be handed to the person in charge for handling.