What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on abnormal traceability and manual review in off-campus training compliance filing and penalty response. The core materials include three types: school operating license, course filing materials, and fee disclosure. The school operating license is issued by the approving authority and states the institution name, address, operating content, and validity period; it is the original proof of subject qualification. Course filing materials are submitted by the institution and include course name, class hours, target students, textbook version, and filing date, reflecting the actual content offered. Fee disclosure is published externally by the institution and includes fee items, standards, refund rules, and disclosure date, reflecting price compliance. The three types of materials are updated by semester or change node, with fields characterized by name, quantity, date, signature, and receipt. When entering the abnormal traceability and manual review function, the school operating license serves as the subject anchor, course filing materials serve as the content comparison source, and fee disclosure serves as the basis for checking price and disclosure timing. Together, the three support the generation of the abnormal list and review conclusions.
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 abnormal list and review conclusions are parsed from the response by subsequent nodes, or the external system handles them as agreed and then completes the process.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| School operating license | Whether the institution name, address, operating content, validity period, and approval signature are consistent item by item with the course filing materials and fee disclosure | Retrieve the original scanned copy of the license, compare the institution name and address in the course filing materials, check the subject name in the fee disclosure, and record differences in dates and signatures |
| Course filing materials | Whether the course name, class hours, target students, textbook version, and filing date match the fee disclosure and actual scheduling records | Using the course name as the key, compare the fee items and class hours in the fee disclosure, check whether the filing date is earlier than the disclosure date, and verify the version number and receipt |
| Fee disclosure | Whether the fee items, standards, refund rules, and disclosure date are supported by original records and have complete signatures | Retrieve the original publication record of the disclosure, compare the class hours and fee items in the course filing materials, check the refund rule receipt, and confirm the disclosure date and signature |
| Abnormal list and review conclusions | Whether each abnormality can be traced back to the source material and whether the reviewer has signed | Trace back to the original records by abnormality number, verify the fields in responseData against the source materials, confirm the reviewer's signature, and then hand it over to the person in charge for handling |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The name and class hour quantity of the same course do not match between the filing materials and the fee disclosure. Cause: The two materials are maintained by different positions, and cross-checking was not performed during updates, resulting in inconsistent field values.
- Phenomenon: The school operating license has been reissued in a new version, but the course filing materials still reference the old version number. Cause: There is no version synchronization mechanism, and changes do not trigger linked updates and receipt confirmation of related materials.
- Phenomenon: The fee disclosure lacks a refund rule signature or receipt, and the abnormal record cannot be traced to the source. Cause: The disclosure publication step did not retain signatures and receipts, the original records are incomplete, and the review conclusion lacks support.
How to verify the setup
This function acceptance: preview the rendered request, check the status code and returned fields, then compare the result against one sample; check whether Authorization and variables are passed in as agreed, and confirm that the responseData fields are consistent with the external interface.
Business test: create one abnormal record, see whether it can be traced back to the source material, verify the name, quantity, date, and signature in the school operating license, course filing materials, and fee disclosure, and after confirming the reviewer's signature, hand it over to the person in charge for handling.
- In the variables panel, check the source of each placeholder, confirm that the request URL, path parameters, request headers, and placeholders in the request body can all be parsed into actual values, and that authentication information is passed in according to the external system's requirements.
- The HTTP node in the workflow only outputs the response body, status code, and returned fields. The abnormal list and review conclusions must be parsed from the response by subsequent nodes, or the external system handles them as agreed and then continues.