What this category's data looks like
The filing and implementation materials for enterprise independent skill talent evaluation typically include three types: the enterprise evaluation filing form, the evaluation specification, and the candidate roster. The filing form carries the evaluation entity, occupational direction, and filing date; the evaluation specification carries the assessment modules, scoring rules, and version number; the roster carries candidate names, ID numbers, declared levels, and signed receipts. The materials come from the enterprise human resources department and the evaluation implementation agency, are updated by batch, and are version-changed in sync when the occupational direction is adjusted or the assessor changes. When the three types of materials enter the exception tracing and manual review workflow, their roles differ: the filing form and evaluation specification serve as the basis for determination, while the roster serves as the comparison draft. The fields, dates, and signatures of the three must be aligned item by item to support the generation of the exception list and the signing of the review conclusion.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting the branch direction and interaction state records. The "Exception List and Review Conclusion" is completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch. 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.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enterprise evaluation filing form | Whether the filing form fields, filing date, and signature are consistent with the evaluation specification and roster, and whether the version is in sync | Compare item by item the occupational direction, evaluation level, and the header fields of the evaluation specification in the filing form, verify that the filing date is not later than the roster declaration date, and check that the filing form signature and receipt are complete |
| Evaluation specification | Whether the specification version number, assessment modules, and scoring rules are in the same batch as the filing form and roster | Verify whether the specification version number is consistent with the version stated in the filing form, check that the module names in the specification correspond to the occupational direction declared in the roster, and confirm that the roster is updated in sync after the specification version change |
| Candidate roster | Whether the roster names, ID numbers, declared levels, dates, and signatures match those in the filing form and evaluation specification | Compare item by item the number of candidates and names in the roster and filing form, verify that the declared levels match the evaluation specification modules, and check whether the roster signatures and receipts are missing any items |
| User selection node | Whether options and branches correspond one-to-one, whether the interaction state is recorded, and whether the selection result variable is passed to subsequent nodes | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, trigger once to view the node status in the run record, reference variables in subsequent nodes and run a trial, and verify the branch direction pointed to by nodeId |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The same candidate's name, count, or date does not match between the roster and the filing form. Cause: The two materials are entered separately by different positions, lacking cross-comparison with the ID number as the primary key.
- Symptom: After the evaluation specification version change, the roster still uses the old module names. Cause: The version was not synchronized, and the version change notice did not cover the roster maintenance step.
- Symptom: The filing form or roster lacks signatures and receipts, and the review cannot be closed. Cause: The signature step was not included in the exception list, and the signature fields were not verified during material archiving.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Run a trial for each option one by one, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, and confirm that variables has been passed to subsequent nodes and that nodeId corresponds to the correct branch.
Business test: Create an exception record, see whether the source material can be traced, and verify the fields, dates, and signatures of the filing form, evaluation specification, and roster.
- In the user selection node, check the options and branch connections one by one, trigger once, and then view the node status and branch direction in the run record.
- Reference the selection result
variablesin subsequent nodes and run a trial once to confirm that the branch pointed to bynodeIdis consistent with the selected option.