What this category's data looks like
Academic misconduct report investigation and handling materials include three categories: report materials, investigation reports, and expert appraisal opinions. Their sources are the acceptance registration, investigation and evidence collection, and expert deliberation stages, and their update cadence rolls forward with case milestones. Report materials include reporter information, reported person information, factual description, evidence list, submission date, and receipt; investigation reports include investigation process, established facts, cited clauses, handling recommendations, report date, and investigator signature; expert appraisal opinions include appraisal matters, analysis opinions, conclusions, appraisal date, and expert signature. After the three categories of materials enter the workflow, report materials serve as factual input and terminology source, investigation reports serve as the comparison mainline and field baseline, and expert appraisal opinions serve as the basis for terminology naming and conclusion back-reference. Multilingual materials and terminology processing form a unified terminology table and comparison draft in the nodes, for use in subsequent external release.
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 then completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch. When the user selection 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 selected option.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Report materials | Whether the report material fields, dates, and signatures are complete, and whether the terminology translations can back-reference the original text | In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, reference variables to record the terminology source of the report materials, and run a trial once to view the branch direction |
| Investigation reports | Whether the investigation report fields, dates, and signatures are complete, and whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record are consistent with the report materials | In subsequent nodes, reference nodeId to locate the investigation report comparison node, and run a trial once to check the interaction state and the passing of the selection result variable |
| Expert appraisal opinions | Whether the expert appraisal opinion fields, dates, and signatures are complete, and whether the terminology of the appraisal conclusion is consistent with the wording in the investigation report | In the node, check the appraisal opinion branch connections, and run a trial once to check the node status and branch direction in the run record |
| Unified terminology table and comparison draft | Whether the same terminology is consistent throughout the entire text and whether the translations can back-reference the original text; sample three terms to check whether the wording is consistent throughout | In subsequent nodes, reference variables and nodeId and run a trial once to check that the terminology in the comparison draft is consistent with the original wording in the three categories of materials |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the report materials and the investigation report. Cause: The two materials were entered separately, and field comparison and back-reference verification were not performed within the same terminology table.
- Symptom: The version of the expert appraisal opinion was not synchronized, and the investigation report still cites the old conclusion. Cause: After the version update, branch reselection was not triggered, and the interaction state and branch direction were not refreshed with the version.
- Symptom: The report materials lack a receipt, or the investigation report or appraisal opinion lacks a signature. Cause: Field verification did not cover signature and receipt items, and the node branch did not direct missing items to the correction path.
How to verify the setup
Feature acceptance: run trials for each option one by one, check the branch direction and interaction state in the run record, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch and that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes, and reference variables and nodeId to locate and review.
Business testing: sample three terms to check whether the wording is consistent throughout, check whether the translations can back-reference the original text, and compare the fields, dates, and signatures of the report materials, investigation reports, and expert appraisal opinions.
- In the node, check the options and branch connections one by one, trigger the user selection node once, and view the node status and branch direction in the run record.
- In subsequent nodes, reference the selection result variable and run a trial once to check whether the process continues downward after the interaction is completed, and confirm that there is no stalling or repeated entry into the interaction.