What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the student disciplinary and appeal processing category. The material sources are disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, and appeal letters, and the update cadence is synchronized with the advancement of the disciplinary process and the appeal acceptance milestones. The three types of materials emphasize different fields: disciplinary fact materials contain behavior descriptions, time and place, and evidence lists; disciplinary decision documents contain the type of disciplinary action, the clauses relied upon, the effective date, and signatures/seals; appeal letters contain the appeal request, reasons, submission date, and receipt. When entering workflow orchestration, disciplinary fact materials and disciplinary decision documents are used to compare the name, quantity, and date of the same record, while appeal letters are used to check whether signatures and receipts are complete. Multilingual materials and terminology handling require a unified terminology glossary and a comparison draft, so that the same term is consistent throughout the entire text and the translated name can refer back to the original text, ultimately delivered for external release.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch directions and interaction status records. "Unified terminology glossary and comparison draft" is then completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch. When the user selection 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.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | The name, quantity, and date are consistent item by item with the disciplinary decision document, and signatures and receipts are complete | Compare the record fields in the two materials one by one, check the signature fields and receipt attachments; reference variables in subsequent nodes and run a trial once |
| Disciplinary decision document | The type of disciplinary action, clauses relied upon, and effective date can correspond to the receipt date of the appeal letter, and the version is the latest | Check the date chain between the decision document and the appeal letter, inspect the version number and signature/seal; trigger once to view the node status in the run record |
| Appeal letter | The appeal request, reasons, submission date, and receipt are complete, and the terminology usage is consistent with the unified terminology glossary | Sample three terms to check whether the usage is consistent throughout the entire text, and whether the translated names refer back to the original text; check the options and branch connections one by one in the node |
| User selection node | Each option corresponds to one branch, and after the interaction is completed, execution continues along the selected branch | Run a trial for each option, check the branch direction and interaction status in the run record, and confirm that nodeId corresponds to the branch |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name and quantity of the same record do not match between the disciplinary fact materials and the disciplinary decision document. Cause: The two materials are updated separately, without field-level comparison and version synchronization.
- Symptom: The date chain between the disciplinary decision document and the appeal letter is broken, and the receipt is missing. Cause: Signatures and receipts were not verified as required fields, and were missed during process advancement.
- Symptom: After selecting an option, the default branch is still followed, and the process stops after the interaction is completed. Cause: The options and branch connections were not checked one by one, and the selection result variable was not passed to subsequent nodes.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: Run a trial for each option, check the branch direction and interaction status in the run record, and confirm that nodeId corresponds to the branch and that variables has been passed to subsequent nodes.
Business testing: Sample three terms to check whether the usage is consistent throughout the entire text, and confirm that the translated names can refer back to the original text.
- 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 subsequent nodes and run a trial once to confirm that the branch direction is consistent with the interaction status record.