What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on the category of investigation and handling of academic misconduct reports, with three types of material entry points: report materials, investigation reports, and expert appraisal opinions. Report materials enter through intake channels, recording the reported person, the matter, the evidence list, and the intake date; investigation reports are submitted by the investigation team, containing the investigation process, findings, handling recommendations, and signatures; expert appraisal opinions are issued by external experts, containing the appraisal matters, basis, conclusions, and expert signatures. When these three types of materials enter the authorized access and external services function, each plays a different role: report materials determine the initial visibility scope, investigation reports determine the level of external disclosure, and expert appraisal opinions determine the boundaries for citing professional conclusions. Field characteristics are concentrated in four items: name, quantity, date, and signature. The update rhythm advances with the investigation stages, and each supplement or revision requires synchronizing the version and receipt to avoid inconsistencies in the same record across different materials.
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 "externally accessible entry points and authorization scope" are parsed from the response by subsequent nodes, or handled by the external system according to the agreement to complete the next step. The HTTP node is only responsible for sending requests according to the agreement; it does not replace the external system in writing to the database or approving.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Report materials | Fields, dates, and signatures must be consistent with the investigation report, and the intake date and receipt must be complete | In the request preview, check the complete rendered address, confirm the sources of the path parameters and request header values, and compare the names, quantities, and dates in the report materials and the investigation report |
| Investigation report | The version must be synchronized with the expert appraisal opinions, and the conclusions and handling recommendations must be signed | Check whether the request body fields are consistent with the external interface agreement, compare the response using a sample request, and confirm that the investigation report version number is the same as the version referenced by the expert appraisal opinions |
| Expert appraisal opinions | The appraisal matters, basis, conclusions, and expert signature must be complete, and the date must not be earlier than the investigation report | In the variables panel, check the source of each placeholder, confirm that the variables values come from the output of preceding nodes, and check that the Authorization request header is passed in according to the external system's requirements |
| Authorized access entry point | The visitor's identity matches the visible scope, and unauthorized access must not be visible | Access once with a restricted identity, and check whether the responseData returned fields in the response body contain only materials within the authorized scope, with a success status code and no unauthorized fields |
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 are entered separately, without field-level comparison and version synchronization.
- Symptom: The expert appraisal opinions lack a signature or receipt, but the external service still returns success. Cause: The request body does not validate the signature field, and the external system does not intercept it when handling according to the agreement.
- Symptom: The investigation report version is not synchronized, and authorized access returns an old conclusion. Cause: The variable source does not point to the latest node output, and the request header authentication information is inconsistent with the external system's requirements.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this function: preview the rendered request, check the status code and returned fields, then compare the result against a sample; confirm that the three identifiers Authorization, variables, and responseData are traceable in the request and response.
Business test: access once with a restricted identity, and see whether the visible scope matches the setting; unauthorized materials are not visible, and the returned fields contain only content within the authorized scope.
- In the request preview, check the complete rendered address, and confirm that the three placeholder variables in the path parameters, request headers, and request body can all be resolved into actual values.
- In the variables panel, check the source of each placeholder, confirm that it comes from global variables, system variables, or the output of preceding nodes, and compare the fields, dates, and signatures of the report materials, investigation report, and expert appraisal opinions.