Verification Workbench
Epic summary
The Verification Workbench gives verification teams a queue-based workspace for processing reported candidates.
MedCES separates two decisions:
- Document verification: Is the evidence complete, authentic in appearance, current, and correctly recorded?
- Eligibility review: Does the verified evidence satisfy the rules for this programme, seat pool, and category?
A document can be valid while the candidate remains ineligible for the allotted seat.
Actors and access
| Actor | Access |
|---|---|
| Document Scrutiny Officer | Verifies evidence and raises document deficiencies |
| Admission Scrutiny Committee Member | Applies admission rules to verified evidence |
| Head of Department or PG Coordinator | Completes programme-specific review |
| Admission Nodal Officer | Assigns work and monitors progress |
| Authorised Dean/Principal | Decides escalations, waivers, and controlled overrides |
| Admission Clerk | Sees published deficiencies but cannot close them |
| Candidate | Responds to deficiencies through the portal |
| Internal Auditor | Read-only findings and audit trail |
Screen structure and data captured
The workbench separates Document Scrutiny, Eligibility Review, Deficiencies, and Senior Decisions. Verifying that a document is authentic is not the same as deciding that it satisfies an eligibility rule.
Document-scrutiny fields
| Field | Entry type | Required | Meaning and validation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Checklist item | Inherited | Yes | Requirement version applicable to the candidate |
| Document type | Inherited/selected | Yes | Standard document master |
| Document number | Entered/extracted | Conditional | Format validated by document type |
| Issue date and expiry date | Entered/extracted | Conditional | Checked against relevant date rules |
| Issuing authority | Entered/selected | Conditional | Compared with permitted authority master where applicable |
| Holder name/details | Entered/extracted | Yes | Compared with candidate identity |
| Original seen | Selected | Yes | Seen, not seen, retained, or not applicable |
| Digital verification | Entered/integration | No | Verification reference, URL/service, response, and timestamp |
| Scrutiny result | Selected | Yes | Verified, mismatch, unreadable, expired, suspected fraud, or not applicable |
| Finding notes/evidence | Entered/uploaded | Conditional | Required for adverse findings |
| Scrutinised by/at | System captured | Yes | Officer, committee role, entity, and timestamp |
Eligibility-review fields
| Field | Entry type | Required | Meaning and validation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility rule | Inherited | Yes | Versioned rule from cycle configuration |
| Applies because | System shown | Yes | Programme, quota, category, domicile, service, or other condition |
| Evidence considered | Selected | Yes | Links to verified documents and source allotment data |
| Rule outcome | Selected | Yes | Satisfied, not satisfied, conditional, not applicable, or senior decision required |
| Condition/valid-until | Entered | Conditional | Required for a conditional outcome |
| Review remarks | Entered | Conditional | Mandatory for adverse or conditional outcomes |
| Recommendation | Selected | Yes | Eligible, conditionally eligible, ineligible, or pending senior decision |
Deficiency and override fields
| Field group | Fields |
|---|---|
| Deficiency | Deficiency code, affected requirement, description, severity, responsible party, issue date, response due date, permitted response method, and status |
| Candidate response | Response text, uploaded evidence, submission time, and declaration |
| Resolution | Accepted/rejected/partially resolved, officer note, resolution time, and remaining action |
| Senior decision | Requested outcome, rule concerned, justification, supporting authority, risk, recommending officer, approver, decision, and expiry |
Use case 1: Verify a document checklist
As a Document Scrutiny Officer
I want to verify each required document
So that the eligibility decision relies on traceable evidence.
Acceptance criteria
- The workbench shows the checklist generated for the candidate’s programme, quota, and declared category.
- Each item displays the submitted copy, original-seen status, custody status, and recorded metadata.
- The verifier records Verified, Deficient, Rejected, Not Applicable, or Escalated.
- A rejection or deficiency requires a reason.
- Mandatory items cannot be marked Not Applicable without the configured authority.
- Completion records the verifier and time.
Negative cases and alternate flows
- Document expired: Record the expiry and issue the applicable deficiency or rejection.
- Name discrepancy: Request evidence linking the records rather than editing the source name.
- Possible alteration or fraud: Restrict the case, preserve the evidence, and escalate.
- Original unavailable: Do not mark Original Seen based only on a declaration.
Use case 2: Decide eligibility
As an Admission Scrutiny Committee Member
I want to evaluate the verified evidence against the seat rules
So that only eligible candidates proceed to admission.
Acceptance criteria
- The reviewer sees the applicable rule set and the verified facts used by each rule.
- The review covers programme, qualifying education, entrance, quota, reservation, domicile, internship, registration, and other applicable conditions.
- Each rule records Pass, Fail, Not Applicable, or Review Required.
- The overall outcome is Eligible, Conditionally Eligible, Ineligible, or Escalated.
- A failed mandatory rule blocks final clearance.
- The outcome records the exact rule version applied.
Negative cases and alternate flows
- Rule cannot be evaluated: Route the case to Review Required rather than treating missing data as a pass.
- Authority-specific exception: Require the source order and authorised approval.
- Candidate challenges finding: Preserve the original decision and record the review as a separate event.
Use case 3: Issue and resolve a deficiency
As a Document Scrutiny Officer
I want to issue a clear deficiency notice
So that the candidate knows what must be corrected and by when.
Acceptance criteria
- The notice identifies the deficient item, reason, acceptable correction, due date, and responsible team.
- The due date cannot exceed the reporting, joining, or statutory limit that governs the case.
- The candidate receives the published notice through an approved channel.
- A response creates a new submission linked to the deficiency.
- The officer re-verifies and records Resolved, Partially Resolved, Rejected, or Escalated.
- The full issue-response history remains available.
Negative cases and alternate flows
- Candidate does not respond: Mark the deficiency overdue and route it to the configured decision process.
- Incorrect response: Explain why it remains unresolved without deleting the response.
- Deadline extension: Require authorised evidence and retain both deadlines.
Use case 4: Request an override or senior decision
As an Admission Scrutiny Committee Member
I want to escalate an exceptional case
So that I do not make an unauthorised policy decision.
Acceptance criteria
- The request identifies the failed or uncertain rule, evidence, recommendation, and requested authority.
- The requester cannot approve their own override.
- The Authorised Dean/Principal can approve, reject, or return the request.
- Approval requires a reason, supporting order, and defined effect.
- The override applies only to the identified case and rule unless a separately approved rule change is made.
Negative cases and alternate flows
- No lawful basis: Reject the override and retain the rationale.
- Cutoff passed: An override cannot create a post-cutoff admission.
- System rule defect: Escalate for rule correction while preserving the candidate-specific decision trail.
Success outcome
The institution can show what evidence was reviewed, which rules were applied, how deficiencies were resolved, and who authorised every exception.