What this category's data looks like
For exception tracing and manual review of admission and enrollment filing for regular higher education institutions, the core materials are the enrollment plan, filing rules, and admission roster. The enrollment plan comes from the batch and major catalog issued by the provincial enrollment management department; the filing rules come from the admission work document of the year; and the admission roster is generated by the college admissions office after each round of filing. The update cadence advances by batch: once each round of filing ends, a version of the roster is formed, and supplementary admission and volunteer solicitation will produce new versions. Field characteristics center on institution code, major code, planned number, filing number, admission number, filing date, and the review signature field. When the materials enter this function, the enrollment plan and filing rules serve as the comparison baseline, the admission roster serves as the object being traced, and the exception list and review conclusions are produced by the manual review step and handed to the person in charge for handling.
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 exception list and review conclusions are parsed from the response by subsequent nodes, or handled by an external system according to the agreement and then completed. The HTTP node does not replace the external system in writing to the database or approving.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Enrollment plan | The institution code, major code, planned number, and batch date must correspond item by item with the admission roster, and the signature field must not be empty | Take the records of the same batch from the plan file and the roster, compare them by code and date, and check the signature and receipt |
| Filing rules | The filing ratio, volunteer order, and tie-breaking rules must be consistent with the actual filing results in the roster, and the version date must be the current year | Retrieve the rule file and the roster, and check the filing number, date, and version number item by item |
| Admission roster | The name, quantity, and date of the same record in the roster and the plan must be consistent, and missing signatures or receipts must be flagged | Extract records by institution code and major code, and compare the name, quantity, date, and signature field |
| HTTP node | The placeholder variables in the request URL and path parameters can be resolved into actual values, the request headers are passed in according to the external system's requirements, and the request body fields are consistent with the interface agreement | View the fully rendered URL in the request preview, check the request header names and value sources, and compare the return using a sample request |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The major name, planned number, and filing date of the same candidate record do not match between the admission roster and the enrollment plan. Cause: The two materials are filled in by different steps, and item-by-item comparison by institution code and major code was not performed.
- Symptom: The version of the filing rules file used is inconsistent with that used by the admission roster, and the roster is still generated according to the rules of the previous batch. Cause: The versions were not synchronized, and after the rules were updated they were not reissued to the roster generation step.
- Symptom: Roster records lack review signatures or receipts, and the exception list cannot be traced back to the source materials. Cause: Signatures and receipts were not archived together with the materials, and the reviewer cannot confirm the support of the original records.
How to verify the setup
Preview the rendered request, check the status code and returned fields, and then compare the result against one sample; in the variables panel, check the sources and values of the three placeholders variables, Authorization, and responseData.
Business test: create one exception record, see whether it can be traced back to the source materials, check whether the exception list and review conclusions are supported by original records and have the reviewer's signature, and then hand them to the person in charge for handling.
- In the request preview, check the fully rendered URL, the request header names, and the value sources, and confirm that both
Authorizationandvariablescan be resolved into actual values. - Use one sample request to compare the returned fields, and check the institution code, major code, planned number, filing date, and signature field of the exception record in
responseData, confirming that they are consistent with the enrollment plan, filing rules, and admission roster.