What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the research ethics review scenario. Materials include ethics review applications, informed consent form templates, and risk assessment forms. The sources are submission packages from institutional ethics committees and research management departments. The update cadence is synchronized with project initiation, modifications, and annual reviews. The ethics review application contains the project name, responsible person, review type, submission date, and signature; the informed consent form template contains the version number, signature field, receipt, and date; the risk assessment form contains the risk level, quantity, assessment date, and signature. When entering workflow orchestration, the three types of materials respectively take on the roles of entry identity determination, visible scope division, and branch direction confirmation. Authorized access and external services need to be aligned item by item according to the material fields.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction status records. "Externally available entry points and authorization scope" is then completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branches.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Ethics review application | The visitor identity matches the visible scope; unauthorized content is not visible | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, and verify whether the identity field in variables is consistent with the application material name, date, and signature |
| Informed consent form template | The version number matches the signature field and receipt date | Trigger one user selection, view the node status in the run record, and verify whether the branch corresponding to nodeId points to the template version |
| Risk assessment form | The risk level, quantity, assessment date, and signature are complete | Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node and run a trial once, and verify whether the risk quantity and date are consistent with the application record |
| Externally available entry points and authorization scope | The external service scope is consistent with the visible scope for parents or superiors | Access once with a restricted identity, and verify whether the authorization scope in variables matches the material fields |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The project name, quantity, and date for the same record do not match between the application and the consent form. Cause: The fields in the two places are entered separately, and cross-checking was not performed against the same record.
- Symptom: The template version is not synchronized, and the old signature field still appears at the external entry point. Cause: The update cadence is not bound to the workflow branches, and the version number is not refreshed with the node status.
- Symptom: A signature or receipt is missing, but the risk assessment form still enters external services. Cause: The node only records interaction status and does not use the signature and receipt as conditions for continuing execution of the branch.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: Run trials option by option, verify the branch directions and interaction status in the run records, and confirm that variables and nodeId lead correctly after being referenced in subsequent nodes.
Business test: Access once with a restricted identity, and check whether the visible scope matches the setting and whether unauthorized content is not visible.
- Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, and record the branch direction corresponding to each option.
- Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node and run a trial once, and verify whether the variable is passed into the subsequent node.