What this category's data looks like
Primary and secondary school admissions organizations intensively process three types of materials during the admissions season: admissions plans, application material checklists, and admission lists. The sources are documents issued by education administrative departments, drafts prepared by school admissions working groups, data exported from application platforms, and offline receipts. The update rhythm rolls with policy wording and application batches, often resulting in plan revisions, checklist supplements, and batch-by-batch list confirmations. Field characteristics center on names, quantities, dates, signatures, and receipts: plans contain admissions scope and time nodes, checklists contain material items and copy counts, and lists contain admission sequence numbers and confirmation status. In multilingual materials and terminology processing, the three types of materials each play different roles: the admissions plan provides terminology sources and wording, the application material checklist carries the implemented terminology wording, and the admission list is used to refer back to the original text to verify translated names. After materials enter workflow orchestration, terminology extraction and comparison are performed first, then branch selection and subsequent publication preparation, ultimately forming a unified terminology table and comparison draft.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction status records. The "unified terminology table and comparison draft" is completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch. When this node is triggered, the conversation enters an interactive state and records the workflow status. After the user completes the selection, execution continues along the branch corresponding to the selected option. The finished product is not produced at this node.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Admissions plan | Whether the terminology sources and wording are consistent with the application material checklist and admission list, and whether the date and signature fields are complete | Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, check whether the terminology wording in the plan can refer back to the original text, and use nodeId to locate the branch where the material is located |
| Application material checklist | Whether the names, quantities, and dates of the same material item match across the two materials | Reference variables in subsequent nodes and run a trial once, check whether the terminology wording in the checklist is consistent with the plan wording, and confirm there are no missing signatures or receipts |
| Admission list | Whether the names, quantities, and dates of the same record are consistent between the list and the checklist, and whether the versions are synchronized | Trigger a user selection once, view the node status in the run record, check whether the translated names in the list can refer back to the original text, and record the variables transfer results |
| Unified terminology table and comparison draft | Whether the same term is written consistently throughout, and whether the translated names can refer back to the original text | Sample three terms to check whether the writing is consistent throughout, check the original-text reference relationship of each term in the comparison draft, and confirm the versions are synchronized |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The names, quantities, and dates of the same record do not match between the admissions plan and the application material checklist. Cause: The two materials were drafted separately, the terminology wording was not unified, and the versions were not synchronized.
- Phenomenon: The quantities of the same record in the admission list and the checklist are inconsistent. Cause: The list was confirmed in batches, checklist supplements were not written back, and missing signatures or receipts made verification impossible.
- Phenomenon: After selecting an option, the default branch is still followed. Cause: The options and branch connections were not checked one by one, the process stopped after the interaction was completed, and the same session repeatedly entered the interaction.
How to verify the setup
Acceptance of this feature: Run trials for each option one by one, check the branch directions and interaction status in the run record, and confirm that nodeId corresponds to the branch and that variables have been passed to subsequent nodes.
Business testing: Sample three terms to check whether the writing is consistent throughout, check whether the translated names can refer back to the original text, and check whether the fields, dates, and signatures of the admissions plan, application material checklist, and admission list are aligned.
- Check the options and branch connections one by one in the node, trigger a user selection once, and view the node status and branch directions in the run record.
- Reference
variablesin subsequent nodes and run a trial once, sample three terms to check whether the writing is consistent throughout, and check whether the versions and signature receipts are complete.