What this category's data looks like
This category's data involves three core types of materials: filing forms, evaluation specifications, and candidate rosters. Filing forms contain institution and occupation names, filing dates, and responsible person signatures; evaluation specifications contain occupation codes, levels, assessment methods, and terminology definitions; rosters contain candidate names, ID numbers, declared levels, units, and dates. The materials come from applicant unit submissions and competent authority receipts, updated on a rolling batch basis, with the signed and sealed page serving as the authoritative version. After entering the workflow, the filing forms and specifications serve as terminology sources and judgment bases, while the roster serves as the instance data to be cross-referenced; the three are cross-compared within the same process to form 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 state records. The "unified terminology table and comparison draft" is completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution along the branch. When a node is triggered, the dialogue enters an interactive 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluation filing form | Whether fields, dates, and signatures are consistent with the specifications and roster | Check the institution name, occupation name, filing date, and signature field, and compare the name, quantity, and date of the same record in the other two materials |
| Evaluation specification | Whether terminology definitions and translated names can refer back to the source text | Extract three terms and check whether their wording and translated names are consistent throughout the specification, filing form, and roster |
| Candidate roster | Whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record match across the two materials | Compare name, declared level, unit, and date by ID number, and flag entries missing signatures or receipts |
| User selection node | Whether options and branches correspond one by one | Check each option and branch connection in the node one by one, and after a trial run, inspect the node status and selection result variables in the run record |
Three common errors
- Phenomenon: The same candidate name is written inconsistently in the roster and the filing form. Cause: The two materials were submitted separately, without terminology unification and version synchronization.
- Phenomenon: The translated names of evaluation specification terms do not match the comparison draft and cannot refer back to the source text. Cause: Terminology sources are scattered, lacking the constraint of a unified terminology table.
- Phenomenon: The filing form lacks a signature or receipt, and the date does not match the declaration date in the roster. Cause: The materials are updated at different paces, and receipts were not archived in sync with the batch.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: run trial tests option by option, check the branch directions and interaction states in the run record, confirm that options and branches correspond one by one, and reference the selection result variable along with variables and nodeId in a subsequent node for one trial run.
Business testing: extract three terms and check whether their wording is consistent throughout, verify whether the translated names can refer back to the source text, and compare the name, quantity, and date of the same record across the filing form, specification, and roster.
- Check each option and branch connection in the node one by one, and after triggering once, inspect the node status in the run record.
- Reference the selection result variable in a subsequent node for one trial run, confirm that selecting a certain option follows the corresponding branch, and that the process continues downward after the interaction is completed.