What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the category of investigation and handling of academic misconduct reports. The materials come from three types of documents: report materials, investigation reports, and expert appraisal opinions, updated according to the rhythm of acceptance, verification, determination, and feedback. When entering workflow orchestration, report materials assume the entry identity and visible scope determination, investigation reports assume process authorization and external service scope verification, and expert appraisal opinions assume conclusion field and signature receipt verification. Field characteristics center on record names, quantities, dates, and signatures. If the name, quantity, or date of the same record does not match between two materials, the version is not synchronized, or signatures or receipts are missing, it will affect authorized access and the external service scope.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction state records. "Externally available entry points and authorization scope" are completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Report materials | Whether names, quantities, dates, and signatures are consistent with the investigation report | Compare record names, quantities, and dates in the two materials item by item, and check whether signatures and receipts are complete |
| Investigation report | Whether the version is synchronized and whether the authorization scope matches the visitor's identity | Check the version number and update date, reference variables in subsequent nodes and run a trial to see whether unauthorized content is invisible |
| Expert appraisal opinions | Whether conclusion fields, dates, and signatures match the investigation report | Check names, quantities, and dates in the appraisal opinions, and inspect items missing signatures or receipts |
| User selection node | Whether each option corresponds to one branch and whether the interaction state is recorded | Check options and branch connections one by one in the node, and after triggering once, view the nodeId and status in the run record |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, or date of the same record does not match between the report materials and the investigation report. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, without field-level comparison and receipt verification.
- Symptom: The investigation report version is not synchronized, and the external service still displays the old authorization scope. Cause: After the version update, the branch was not re-run, and subsequent nodes still reference old variables.
- Symptom: Expert appraisal opinions are missing signatures or receipts but still enter the external entry point. Cause: Signatures and receipts were not used as branch conditions, and the process passes directly after the interaction is completed.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: run trials option by option, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch, and that the process continues downward after the interaction is completed.
Business test: access once with a restricted identity, see whether the visible scope matches the setting, and whether unauthorized content is invisible.
- Check options and branch connections one by one in the node, and after triggering once, view the
nodeIdand status in the run record. - Reference
variablesin subsequent nodes and run a trial once to check whether the variable has been passed to subsequent nodes.