What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the scenario of investigating and handling academic misconduct reports, focusing on abnormal traceability and manual review. Materials fall into three categories: report materials (including the reporter's statement, evidence list, and receipt), investigation reports (including the investigation process, factual findings, and handling recommendations), and expert appraisal opinions (including appraisal methods, conclusions, and expert signatures). Sources are acceptance registration, submission by the investigation team, and feedback from the expert pool, with the update cadence advancing along with review milestones. When the three types of materials enter the HTTP interface, their roles differ: report materials provide the original record anchor, investigation reports provide the comparison baseline, and expert appraisal opinions provide the basis for professional judgment. Field characteristics are concentrated in four categories: name, quantity, date, and signature, and inconsistencies are most likely to be exposed during cross-material comparison.
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 to complete the follow-up. The HTTP module sends requests to the target address, and variables can be used as placeholders in three places: path parameters, request body, and request headers. Variables come from global variables, system variables, or outputs of preceding nodes.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Report materials | Whether the name, quantity, date, and signature are consistent with the investigation report | Retrieve the original records, compare the name, quantity, and date of the same record in the two materials, and verify whether the receipt is complete |
| Investigation report | Whether the version is synchronized and the signature is complete | Check the report version number and submission date, inspect the investigator and reviewer signature fields, and confirm there are no missing signatures |
| Expert appraisal opinion | Whether the appraisal conclusion corresponds to the factual findings in the report | Compare the appraisal method and conclusion with the factual findings in the report, verify the expert signature and date, and mark discrepancies |
| HTTP request | Whether the placeholder variables can be resolved into actual values | View the rendered full address in the request preview, check the Authorization request header and request body fields, and verify the source of variables in the variables panel |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name and quantity of the same record do not match between the report materials and the investigation report. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, and no cross-material comparison was performed.
- Symptom: The investigation report version is not synchronized, and the old version's conclusion is still cited. Cause: The version number was not updated along with the review milestones, and there is a lack of version verification actions.
- Symptom: The expert appraisal opinion lacks a signature or receipt. Cause: The signature field was not verified during the material circulation process, and the receipt was not archived with the materials.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: preview the rendered request, check the status code and returned fields, and then compare the results against a sample; at the same time, check whether Authorization, variables, and responseData appear as agreed.
Business test: create an abnormal record and see whether it can be traced back to the source material
- In the variables panel, verify the source of each placeholder, and confirm that the variables in the request address, request headers, and request body can all be traced to specific origins
- Use a sample request to compare the returned fields, and check whether the external interface agreement and the response body structure are consistent