What this category's data looks like
This page focuses on the student disciplinary action and appeal handling category, with materials sourced from disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision documents, appeal statements, and receipts. Disciplinary fact materials are submitted by the investigating party and include the persons involved, time, location, behavioral description, and evidence list; disciplinary decision documents are issued by the reviewing body and include the type of disciplinary action, the clauses relied upon, the effective date, and signatures/seals; appeal statements are submitted by students and include the appeal request, reasons, evidence, and signature; receipts record delivery and acknowledgment. The update rhythm advances segment by segment through investigation, review, delivery, appeal, and re-review, with dates and signatures appended as each stage progresses. Field characteristics are reflected in the fact that the name, quantity, and date of the same record must be consistent across materials, the version number increments with revisions, and signatures and receipts form a closed loop. When materials enter workflow orchestration, disciplinary fact materials and disciplinary decision documents serve as the basis for branch triggering, while appeal statements and receipts serve as records of interaction results, each playing a different role.
Configuration and implementation checks
This stage is executed by workflow nodes (user selection and branching), outputting branch direction and interaction status records. The handover-ready deployment status and operation records are completed by subsequent nodes continuing execution according to the branch. When a node is triggered, the conversation enters an interaction state and the workflow status is recorded; after the user completes the selection, execution continues along the branch corresponding to the selected option.
| Object | Check | Verification action |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplinary fact materials | The fields, dates, and signatures of the persons involved, time, location, behavioral description, and evidence list must be consistent with the corresponding items in the disciplinary decision document | Compare the name, quantity, and date in the two materials item by item, check whether the signature fields and receipts are complete, and verify the node status and branch direction in the run records; run a trial with variables and nodeId referenced once |
| Disciplinary decision document | The fields for the type of disciplinary action, clauses relied upon, effective date, and signatures/seals must correspond to the appeal statement acceptance record | Check whether the name, quantity, and date of the same record in the decision document and the appeal statement are consistent, check whether the version number is synchronized, confirm the signatures/seals and delivery receipt, and verify the branch direction corresponding to nodeId in the run records |
| Appeal statement | The fields for the appeal request, reasons, evidence, and signature must correspond to the receipt and re-review records | Check whether the dates and signatures in the appeal statement and receipt match, verify the version number and revision records, confirm that the selection result variable in the interaction status record has been passed to subsequent nodes, and run a trial with variables referenced once |
| Receipt | The fields for delivery date, acknowledgment person, and acknowledgment method must be consistent with the timeline of the disciplinary decision document and the appeal statement | Compare the dates and signatures in the receipt and the two materials, check for missing items, and verify the branch direction and interaction status in the run records |
Three common errors
- Symptom: The name, quantity, and date of the same record do not match between the disciplinary fact materials and the disciplinary decision document. Cause: The two entries come from different sources and no cross-check was performed, and the versions were not synchronized.
- Symptom: The timelines of the disciplinary decision document and the appeal statement are misaligned, and the receipt lacks a signature or acknowledgment date. Cause: Records were not appended in order during the delivery and appeal stages, and signatures and receipts did not form a closed loop.
- 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 item by item, and the selection result variable was not referenced and trial-run in subsequent nodes.
How to verify the setup
This feature acceptance: trial-run each option one by one, check the branch direction and interaction status in the run records, confirm that each option corresponds to one branch, that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes, and run a trial once with variables and nodeId referenced in subsequent nodes.
Business testing: check item by item once according to the handover sheet to see which record is missing, focusing on checking whether the fields, dates, and signatures in the disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision document, appeal statement, and receipt are consistent.
- In the nodes, check the options and branch connections one by one; after triggering once, view the node status in the run records, confirm that the interaction status is recorded and that the selection result variable has been passed to subsequent nodes, and run a trial once with
variablesandnodeIdreferenced. - Check the disciplinary fact materials, disciplinary decision document, appeal statement, and receipt item by item according to the handover sheet, check whether the name, quantity, date, version number, signature, and receipt are complete, and mark any missing item.