What this category's data looks like
This page addresses the graduate admissions re-examination and admission scenario. Materials come from three types of files: re-examination plans, candidate score sheets, and transfer/adjustment lists. The update cadence follows the rolling release of re-examination and transfer notices for each batch. Field characteristics center on candidate name, ID, score, major direction, date, and signature fields, and the same record often appears across two materials. In multilingual materials and terminology processing, the re-examination plan serves as the source of rule and process terminology, the candidate score sheet serves as the source of score and ranking terminology, and the transfer list serves as the source of transfer destination and status terminology. After entering the workflow, each serves as input for terminology extraction and comparison, for subsequent nodes to unify translated names and trace back to the source text.
Configuration and implementation checks
This step is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch direction and interaction status records. "Unified terminology glossary and comparison draft" is continued and completed by subsequent nodes 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Re-examination plan | Whether fields, dates, and signatures are consistent with the candidate score sheet and transfer list | Check the major direction, date, and signature fields in the plan, and reference the selection result variable in variables to run a trial |
| Candidate score sheet | Whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record match between the score sheet and the transfer list | Compare candidate IDs and scores one by one, and view the branch direction at the node corresponding to nodeId |
| Transfer list | Whether the version is synchronized, and whether signatures or receipts are missing | Check the transfer list version and receipts, trigger the user selection node once, and view the node status in the run records |
| Unified terminology glossary and comparison draft | Whether the same term is written consistently throughout, and whether the translated name can trace back to the source text | Sample three terms to check their writing throughout, and reference the selection result variable in subsequent nodes to run a trial |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same candidate do not match between two materials. Cause: The terminology glossary is not unified, and each material maintains fields independently.
- Symptom: The transfer list version is not synchronized, and signatures or receipts are missing. Cause: Receipts and versions were not checked according to the branch before release.
- Symptom: After selecting an option, the default branch is still followed. Cause: 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
Feature acceptance: Run trials for each option one by one, check the branch direction and interaction status in the run records, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch, and that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes.
Business testing: Sample three terms to check whether their writing is consistent throughout, and confirm that the translated names can trace back to the source text.
- In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, trigger the user selection node once, and view the node status in the run records.
- Reference the selection result variable in subsequent nodes and run a trial once, checking the writing of the same term throughout and whether the translated name traces back to the source text.