What this category's data looks like
Journal three-review three-proof and editorial quality materials come from editorial department three-review forms, proofs, proofreading records, and external service receipts, with an update cadence that follows the flow of each issue's manuscripts and the progression of proof rounds. When the materials enter workflow orchestration, their roles differ: the three-review form provides the fields, dates, and signatures of initial review, re-review, and final review; the proof carries version and proof-round markers; the proofreading record corresponds to the personnel, time, and revision traces of each proofreading. External services and authorized access require the three to have consistent fields, synchronized versions, and complete signature receipts before an externally available entry point and authorization scope can be formed.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction state records. The "externally available entry point and authorization scope" is completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branches. When a node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and records the workflow state; after the user completes the selection, execution continues along the branch corresponding to the chosen option.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Three-review form | Whether the fields, dates, and signatures correspond item by item between the three-review form and the proofs and proofreading records, and whether the signatures for initial review, re-review, and final review are complete | Check the fields, dates, and signatures of the three-review form one by one, cross-compare them with the proofs and proofreading records, and confirm the options and branch connections in the node |
| Proof | Whether the version and proof-round markers are synchronized with the three-review form and proofreading records, and whether the names, quantities, and dates are consistent | Check the version and proof-round markers of the proof, compare the names, quantities, and dates of the three-review form and proofreading records, and check whether the variables and nodeId referenced by subsequent nodes point to the correct branch |
| Proofreading record | Whether the personnel, time, and revision traces of each proofreading are complete, and whether receipts are missing | Check the personnel, time, and revision traces of the proofreading records one by one, check whether the receipts are complete, and after triggering a user selection node once, view the node status and selection result variables in the run record |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The names, quantities, and dates of the same record do not match between the three-review form and the proofreading records. Cause: The two materials are updated separately, no field-level cross-comparison is performed, and the discrepancies are carried into subsequent branches.
- Symptom: The proof version is not synchronized, and the proof-round markers are inconsistent with the proofreading records. Cause: After the version is updated, it is not synchronized to all materials, and subsequent nodes continue execution according to the old version.
- Symptom: The three-review form lacks signatures or the external service lacks receipts. Cause: The signature and receipt steps are not included in material verification, and the authorization scope lacks a basis.
How to verify the setup
This feature's acceptance: try running each option one by one, check the branch directions and interaction states in the run record, confirm that the options and branch connections are consistent, that the selection result variables have been passed to subsequent nodes, and check whether the variables and nodeId references are correct.
Business test: access once with a restricted identity, see whether the visible scope matches the setting, and whether unauthorized content is invisible.
- Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, and trigger once to view the node status in the run record
- Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node and run it once to confirm that the process continues downward after the interaction is completed