Creating, submitting and auditing method for project settlement file

Abstract

The invention discloses a method for creating, submitting and auditing engineering settlement files, and belongs to the technical field of engineering management. According to the invention, through systematized task distribution of checking, a project manager can efficiently and clearly determine the responsibility of submission and checking, errors and time waste of manual distribution are reduced, each specialty adopts an independent checking mode, checking of specialties such as civil engineering, installation and gardens is mutually independent and does not interfere with each other, parallel operation is realized, the whole submission period is greatly shortened, and the working efficiency is improved. After each specialty is checked, dynamic comparison among specialties is carried out through database records, the overall checking progress is judged in real time, and the state is fed back, so that the problems of communication delay and information asymmetry possibly existing in cross-specialty cooperation are effectively solved, meanwhile, two sealing modes of a physical seal and an electronic seal are provided, a user can flexibly select according to requirements, and the sealing efficiency is improved. The flow adaptability and convenience are improved, the submission efficiency, the cooperation capability and the adaptability are integrally improved, and the method is suitable for management and auditing of multi-specialty cooperation project files.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present invention relates to the technical field of engineering management, and in particular to a method for creating, submitting and examining engineering settlement documents. Background Art

[0002] In engineering projects, the creation and review of engineering settlement documents involving multiple disciplines such as civil engineering, installation, and gardening has become a crucial link in project management. The traditional submission process usually relies on manual operations. The reviewer needs to submit the results documents offline, and the reviewers of each discipline complete the review in batches and provide feedback.

[0003] However, this approach is obviously inefficient and prone to errors. During the multiple transmissions, the submitted documents may be missing, the versions may be confusing, or the feedback may be delayed, affecting the overall progress of the project. In addition, the cross-disciplinary collaboration is poor, and there is a lack of an effective review and comparison mechanism between disciplines, which easily leads to inconsistent review results, increasing communication costs and the probability of rework.

[0004] In recent years, the development of information technology has provided new solutions for the management and review of engineering documents. The information-based review system can partially replace the traditional manual process and improve the efficiency and accuracy of data processing by introducing electronic processes and automated verification.

[0005] However, existing review systems usually only support single-professional review and lack the function of multi-professional collaborative review. In addition, most review systems lack flexibility in version management, change support and stamping methods of submitted documents, making it difficult to meet the changing needs of actual engineering projects. Summary of the invention

[0006] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents to solve the problems raised in the above-mentioned background technology.

[0007] To achieve the above object, the present invention provides the following technical solution: a method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents, comprising the following steps: Project task allocation: the project leader distributes the tasks of engineering settlement documents through the review system and specifies the corresponding persons responsible for submission and review; The submission document is created and verified. The submission operator logs into the review system and submits the submission data according to the task requirements. The review system performs a preliminary verification on the submission data. The verified data is transmitted to the back-end service layer via the front-end interface. The back-end service layer assigns corresponding reviewers to the submission data of each profession. Professional document review: each professional reviewer obtains the documents to be reviewed assigned by the review system, and enters the corresponding review page to review them one by one; Inter-disciplinary review comparison: after each discipline passes the review, it is determined whether all disciplines have completed the review. If there are disciplines that have not passed the review, the review system will return the results to the reviewer. When all professional reviews are completed, the review system will archive the review content into a final version file and generate a version record. The reviewer can apply for a seal through the review system, and the review will be completed after the seal is completed. Version change submission. If the reviewed document needs to be resubmitted due to changes, the user initiates a new submission process based on the original submission form.

[0008] Furthermore, in the project task allocation, the task is in the form of a submission form, and the submission form includes civil engineering, installation and gardening majors.

[0009] Furthermore, in the creation and verification of the submitted documents, the submitted data includes three specialties: civil engineering, installation and gardening; Use regular expressions to verify whether the format of the submitted data meets the requirements; Verify the integrity and content correctness of data through custom validation rules, and generate feedback information in real time for erroneous data to prompt users to make corrections; After the data verification is passed, the front-end interface transmits the review data to the back-end service layer; The back-end service layer analyzes the submitted data and automatically classifies the submitted data into different disciplines according to the task allocation records; The review system assigns corresponding reviewers to each major and sends review notifications to the reviewers.

[0010] Furthermore, the professional document review further includes the following steps: During the review of civil engineering, the civil engineering auditor will check the submitted documents item by item. After the review is completed, the front end will submit the review results to the back end. The back end will store the review results in the database and feedback to the submitter and auditor. During the installation professional review, the installation auditor completes the installation professional review process in the same way as the civil engineering professional review; During the review of the landscape major, the landscape auditor completes the review process of the landscape major in the same way as the review of the civil engineering major.

[0011] Furthermore, the inter-professional review and comparison further includes the following steps: After each professional review is completed, the review system will record the review results into the database and trigger the review comparison function between majors; The review system checks the review status of other disciplines based on the database records to see whether it is completed; If all majors pass the review, the review system automatically determines that the review is completed and proceeds to the next step; If there are majors that have not passed the review, the review system will prompt the reviewer to wait for the review of the unfinished majors to be completed and update the review progress.

[0012] Furthermore, in the review and filing stamping application, the reviewer initiates a stamping application through the review system and selects a stamping type, which includes a physical stamp and an electronic signature. The review system assigns a corresponding approver based on the stamping type.

[0013] Furthermore, the review, filing and stamping application further includes the following steps: After applying for a physical seal, the review system assigns a seal reviewer to conduct online approval. After approval, the seal is stamped offline to complete the physical seal stamping process; After applying for an electronic signature, the user submits the electronic version of the result document to be signed. The review system calls the third-party electronic signature service to complete the signature and returns the signed document to the user. After stamping is completed, the review system updates the review status to completed, ending the review process.

[0014] Furthermore, the review, filing and stamping application further includes the following steps: After the physical seal is stamped, the user is prompted to upload the electronic version of the document with the physical seal stamped; After receiving the electronic version of the document with the physical seal, scanning the electronic version of the document with the physical seal to obtain the corresponding physical seal area on the electronic version of the document; Extracting the coverage area of ​​the stamp lines in the physical stamp area as the first area value; Retrieving from the database the standard coverage area of ​​the seal lines of the electronic seal corresponding to the physical seal as the second area value; Performing grayscale processing on the area stamped with the physical seal to obtain a target grayscale image corresponding to the area stamped with the physical seal; Retrieving pixel points whose grayscale values ​​are not less than a preset first grayscale threshold from the pixel points included in the target grayscale image, and integrating them into a pixel point set; Obtaining a stamp integrity evaluation coefficient by combining the grayscale value in the pixel point set with the first area value and the second area value; The stamp integrity evaluation coefficient is obtained by the following formula: Where E represents the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient; n represents the number of pixels contained in the pixel set; H i Represents the grayscale value corresponding to the i-th pixel in the pixel set; H y01 represents the preset first grayscale threshold; S 01 and S 02Respectively represent the first area value and the second area value; H z Indicates the difference between the central grayscale value corresponding to the target grayscale image and the grayscale minimum value of the stamp line of the electronic stamp corresponding to the physical stamp; Comparing the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient with a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold; When the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient exceeds a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, it is determined whether the stamp quality of the corresponding physical stamp on the electronic version of the document meets the preset requirements.

[0015] Furthermore, when the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient exceeds a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, it is determined whether the stamp quality of the corresponding physical stamp on the electronic version of the document meets the preset requirements, including: When the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient exceeds a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, the grayscale values ​​of all pixels included in the target grayscale image are retrieved; Extracting pixel points in the target grayscale image whose grayscale values ​​are lower than a preset second grayscale threshold as first target pixel points; wherein the preset second grayscale threshold is smaller than the preset first grayscale threshold; Extracting the pixel coverage area corresponding to the first target pixel; Extracting pixel points whose grayscale values ​​in the target grayscale image are greater than a preset first grayscale threshold as second target pixel points; Extracting the pixel coverage area corresponding to the second target pixel; Obtain a physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient by using the pixel coverage area corresponding to the first target pixel and the pixel coverage area corresponding to the second target pixel in combination with the grayscale value of the first target pixel and the grayscale value of the second target pixel; The physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient is obtained by the following formula: Where Q represents the physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient; k represents the number of first target pixel points; m represents the number of second target pixel points; S h01 S represents the pixel coverage area corresponding to the first target pixel; h02 S represents the pixel coverage area corresponding to the second target pixel; 01 and S 02 Respectively represent the first area value and the second area value; H 01i represents the gray value corresponding to the i-th first target pixel; H 02i represents the gray value corresponding to the i-th second target pixel; H 01z represents the middle grayscale value corresponding to the k first target pixels; H 02zrepresents the middle value of the grayscale values ​​corresponding to the m second target pixels; E represents the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient; E0 represents the preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold; Comparing the physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient with a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold; When the physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient is lower than the preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, it is determined that the physical stamp quality does not meet the preset requirements, and the user is prompted to re-stamp.

[0016] Furthermore, the version change submission for review also includes the following steps: If the archived document needs to be resubmitted for review due to changes, the reviewer selects the original submission form in the review system to start a new round of submission; The review system automatically generates new review tasks based on the version records and archived data of the original review form, and retains historical review opinions as reference information; The review process for new review tasks follows the sequence of review document creation and verification, professional document review, inter-professional review and comparison, and review archiving and stamping application. Upon completion, the current archived version record is updated, and the source and content of changes to the historical version are noted.

[0017] Compared with the prior art, the present invention has the following beneficial effects: 1. The present invention greatly improves the efficiency of submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents through the information design of the entire process, while ensuring the accuracy of the submitted and reviewed data and processes, and automates the task allocation. The project leader can directly distribute tasks through the review system and clearly define the persons responsible for submission and review, thereby reducing the time delay and error risks caused by manual allocation. The submission and review operators can complete the submission of data in the review system and obtain instant feedback through the real-time verification function to ensure that the format, content and integrity of the submitted data meet the requirements, which not only avoids non-compliant data from entering the review stage, but also greatly reduces the subsequent review pressure and rework rate.

[0018] 2. In the present invention, various disciplines such as civil engineering, installation, and gardening can complete the review in parallel independently of each other, avoiding the situation where the overall review progress is affected by the review delay of a certain discipline. The reviewer can view the achievement documents one by one and submit the review opinions through the review page assigned by the review system. The review system records the review results of each discipline in real time, facilitates communication and traceability between reviewers and between reviewers and reviewers, monitors the review progress of each discipline in real time, automatically checks whether all disciplines have completed the review, and dynamically prompts the unfinished parts, effectively avoiding the process stagnation caused by communication delays, and further optimizes the collaborative efficiency of cross-disciplinary review.

[0019] 3. In the present invention, after all professional reviews are completed, the reviewer can directly initiate a stamping application through the review system. The review system supports two stamping methods: physical stamping and electronic signature stamping, and assigns different approval processes according to user selection. Through this flexible stamping mode, the present invention not only meets the needs of traditional physical stamps, but also fully utilizes the advantages of electronic signatures, significantly improves the convenience of stamping and interactive efficiency, automatically generates a version record of the submitted document, and retains detailed historical information for each version of the document. When the submitted document needs to be resubmitted due to changes, the reviewer does not need to re-create the submission form, but can directly initiate a new submission process based on the original version. The review system will automatically generate a new submission task and retain the original review record for reference, ensuring that the change process is transparent and efficient.

[0020] 4. Through the optimization of version management and stamping process, the present invention provides users with more flexible and efficient tools to cope with the dynamic change requirements of submitted documents. At the same time, through the management of historical versions and change records, the traceability of data is ensured, providing sufficient reference basis for subsequent review and management. Overall, the innovative design of the present invention in stamping and version management not only improves the user experience, but also provides strong flexibility and adaptability for the submission process of engineering settlement documents. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0021] Figure 1 It is a schematic diagram of the process of the method for submitting for examination and approval of the present invention; Figure 2 It is a schematic diagram of the entire process of the submission and review method of the present invention. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0022] The following will be combined with the drawings in the embodiments of the present invention to clearly and completely describe the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present invention. Obviously, the described embodiments are only part of the embodiments of the present invention, not all of the embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by ordinary technicians in this field without creative work are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0023] In order to solve the problems that the documents submitted for review may be missed, the versions may be confused, or the feedback may be delayed during multiple transmissions, which may affect the overall progress of the project. The cross-disciplinary collaboration is poor, and there is a lack of effective review and comparison mechanism between disciplines, which may easily lead to inconsistent review results, increase communication costs and the probability of rework. At the same time, the existing review system usually only supports the review of a single discipline and lacks the function of multi-disciplinary collaborative review. In addition, most review systems are not flexible enough in version management, change support, and stamping methods of submitted documents, making it difficult to meet the changing needs of actual engineering projects. For technical issues, please refer to Figure 1-Figure 2 , the present invention provides the following technical solutions: A method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents, comprising the following steps: Project task allocation: The project leader distributes the tasks of engineering settlement documents through the review system and clarifies the corresponding review and audit responsibilities. The tasks are in the form of a review list, which includes civil engineering, installation and gardening. The submission document is created and verified. The submission operator logs into the review system and submits the submission data according to the task requirements. The review system performs a preliminary verification on the submission data. The verified data is transmitted to the back-end service layer via the front-end interface. The back-end service layer assigns corresponding reviewers to the submission data of each profession. Professional document review: each professional reviewer obtains the documents to be reviewed assigned by the review system, and enters the corresponding review page to review them one by one; Inter-disciplinary review comparison: after each discipline passes the review, it is determined whether all disciplines have completed the review. If there are disciplines that have not passed the review, the review system will return the results to the reviewer. When all professional reviews are completed, the review system will archive the review content into a final version file and generate a version record. The reviewer can apply for a seal through the review system, and the review will be completed after the seal is completed. Version change submission. If the reviewed document needs to be resubmitted due to changes, the user initiates a new submission process based on the original submission form.

[0024] In the above embodiment, the review process of different professions is carried out independently. At the same time, the data consistency and review progress synchronization are achieved through the inter-professional review comparison function, which greatly improves the collaborative efficiency of multi-professional submission for review. The review system supports the change management of the submission version and the adjustment of professional responsible persons. When the task or reviewer changes, the review system can quickly adapt and reconfigure the process to ensure the continuity of the review process. The review system records the historical data of each link such as submission, review and stamping, including review opinions and reasons for version changes, which is convenient for traceability and data management. By introducing electronic signature technology and supporting it in parallel with physical seals, flexible stamping methods are provided to meet the needs of different users and optimize interaction efficiency. In the above embodiment, the task allocation and responsible persons are clearly defined through the review system to ensure that each professional task has a clear responsibility. The review system automatically generates a review form and records the allocation time and responsible person information to provide data support for the status tracking of subsequent processes. Task allocation supports multi-professional division of labor to ensure that each profession is handled independently in the review process.

[0025] During the creation and verification of the submitted documents, the submitted data includes three disciplines: civil engineering, installation and gardening; Use regular expressions to verify whether the format of the submitted data meets the requirements; Verify the integrity and content correctness of data through custom validation rules, and generate feedback information in real time for erroneous data to prompt users to make corrections; After the data verification is passed, the front-end interface transmits the review data to the back-end service layer; The back-end service layer analyzes the submitted data and automatically classifies the submitted data into different disciplines according to the task allocation records; The review system assigns corresponding reviewers to each major and sends review notifications to the reviewers.

[0026] In the above embodiment, the format and content of the submitted data are verified in real time through regular expressions and custom rules to avoid human omissions, and real-time feedback information is generated for erroneous data, which is convenient for the review operator to quickly correct and improve the efficiency of data submission. The review system classifies the data into various disciplines according to the analysis results to avoid errors or delays that may be caused by manual allocation. After the verification is completed, the review system automatically notifies the corresponding reviewer, shortening the review start time; In the above embodiment, during the submission stage of the review documents, the review system supports a variety of mainstream file formats through a user-friendly file upload module. When the review operator fills in the relevant information in the system, the system prompts in real time the incomplete required fields to avoid missing key content. The content of the primary verification includes the correctness of the format, the integrity of the data, and the compliance of key fields. For example, if the contract amount field in the review data is empty or the input format is incorrect, the system will pop up a specific prompt message to guide the operator to correct it. After the verification is passed, the review data is transmitted from the front-end interface to the back-end service layer. The back-end system divides the task list according to the profession and accurately allocates it to each professional reviewer according to the preset rules.

[0027] Professional document review also includes the following steps: During the review of civil engineering, the civil engineering auditor will check the submitted documents item by item. After the review is completed, the front end will submit the review results to the back end. The back end will store the review results in the database and feedback to the submitter and auditor. During the installation professional review, the installation auditor completes the installation professional review process in the same way as the civil engineering professional review; During the review of the landscape major, the landscape auditor completes the review process of the landscape major in the same way as the review of the civil engineering major.

[0028] In the above embodiment, the review process of each profession is carried out independently to avoid the overall process being affected by the delay of the review of one profession. The review system records the review opinions and results of each profession to facilitate real-time communication between the reviewer and the reviewer. The review process of the three professions of civil engineering, installation, and gardening is consistent, which facilitates process standardization and subsequent expansion.

[0029] The inter-professional review and comparison also includes the following steps: After each professional review is completed, the review system will record the review results into the database and trigger the review comparison function between majors; The review system checks the review status of other disciplines based on the database records to see whether it is completed; If all majors pass the review, the review system automatically determines that the review is completed and proceeds to the next step; If there are majors that have not passed the review, the review system will prompt the reviewer to wait for the review of the unfinished majors to be completed and update the review progress.

[0030] In the above embodiment, through the database record and comparison function, the review system can monitor the review progress of multiple disciplines in real time. Before all disciplines are reviewed, it is not allowed to enter the archiving stage to ensure the professional consistency of the finalized documents. If there are disciplines that have not been reviewed, the review system automatically prompts the reviewer to reduce the time cost of manual communication. In the above embodiment, when the review of a certain major is completed, the review system will immediately store the review results of the major and record them in the review record table in the database. At the same time, the system will trigger the inter-major comparison function to check the review progress of other majors. When the review of a certain major is not completed, the system will prompt the review status of the major (such as "to be completed" or "failed") on the review interface, and notify the relevant reviewer of the specific information of the pending major. If the review of all majors is completed, the review system will automatically update the overall status to "review passed" and enter the archiving step. Through automated comparison and prompts, the time cost of manual coordination is reduced.

[0031] In the application for stamping during review and filing, the reviewer initiates the stamping application through the review system and selects the stamping type, which includes physical stamp and electronic signature. The review system assigns the corresponding approver according to the stamping type. After applying for a physical seal, the review system assigns a seal reviewer to conduct online approval. After approval, the seal is stamped offline to complete the physical seal stamping process; After applying for an electronic signature, the user submits the electronic version of the result document to be signed. The review system calls the third-party electronic signature service to complete the signature and returns the signed document to the user. After stamping is completed, the review system updates the review status to completed, ending the review process.

[0032] In the above embodiment, the review system archives the reviewed documents and generates version records for easy traceability and management. It supports both physical and electronic signatures, providing users with more options. After the stamp is completed, the review system updates the review status to completed, realizing closed-loop management of the entire process from submission for review to finalization. In the above embodiment, during the review and archiving stage, the review system aggregates all professional review opinions to generate an archive file, and automatically generates a version number to identify the finalization status of the current file. When the reviewer initiates a seal application through the review system, he selects the seal type (such as a physical seal or an electronic signature), and the system pushes the application to the corresponding approver queue according to the different seal types. After the approval is completed, the system updates the review status to "archived" and records the version number and seal information of the archived file in the archive log for subsequent query and tracing.

[0033] Specifically, the review, filing and stamping application further comprises the following steps: After the physical seal is stamped, the user is prompted to upload the electronic version of the document with the physical seal stamped; After receiving the electronic version of the document with the physical seal, scanning the electronic version of the document with the physical seal to obtain the corresponding physical seal area on the electronic version of the document; Extracting the coverage area of ​​the stamp lines in the physical stamp area as the first area value; Retrieving from the database the standard coverage area of ​​the seal lines of the electronic seal corresponding to the physical seal as the second area value; Performing grayscale processing on the area stamped with the physical seal to obtain a target grayscale image corresponding to the area stamped with the physical seal; Retrieving pixel points whose grayscale values ​​are not less than a preset first grayscale threshold from the pixel points included in the target grayscale image, and integrating them into a pixel point set; Obtaining a stamp integrity evaluation coefficient by combining the grayscale value in the pixel point set with the first area value and the second area value; The stamp integrity evaluation coefficient is obtained by the following formula: Where E represents the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient; n represents the number of pixels contained in the pixel set; H i Represents the grayscale value corresponding to the i-th pixel in the pixel set; H y01 represents the preset first grayscale threshold; S 01 and S 02 Respectively represent the first area value and the second area value; H z Indicates the difference between the central grayscale value corresponding to the target grayscale image and the grayscale minimum value of the stamp line of the electronic stamp corresponding to the physical stamp; Comparing the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient with a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold; When the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient exceeds a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, it is determined whether the stamp quality of the corresponding physical stamp on the electronic version of the document meets the preset requirements.

[0034] The technical effect of the above technical solution is: through the automated process, users can directly upload the electronic version of the file after completing the physical seal, and the system can automatically scan, identify and process the file, greatly reducing the time and cost of manual review and improving work efficiency. This solution can accurately determine whether the actual stamping area of ​​the physical seal meets the standard by extracting the stamp line coverage area of ​​the physical seal and comparing it with the corresponding electronic seal standard coverage area in the database. At the same time, by graying the stamped area and using the gray value for further analysis, the accuracy of the evaluation is improved.

[0035] By introducing the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient E, the scheme can comprehensively evaluate the integrity of the stamp by considering multiple factors (such as the number of pixels, grayscale value, area difference, etc.). This evaluation method not only considers the size of the stamp area, but also the clarity and uniformity of the stamp, thereby more comprehensively reflecting the quality of the stamp. By comparing the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient with the preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, the system can automatically determine whether the stamp quality of the corresponding physical stamp on the electronic version of the document meets the preset requirements. This intelligent judgment method reduces the error of human judgment and improves the objectivity and accuracy of the judgment. The parameters in the scheme (such as the first grayscale threshold, integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, etc.) can be adjusted according to actual conditions to adapt to different stamp requirements and evaluation criteria. At the same time, the scheme can also be further expanded, such as introducing more image processing technologies and machine learning algorithms to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the evaluation.

[0036] In summary, this technical solution achieves comprehensive, accurate and efficient quality evaluation of electronic documents with physical seals through automation, precision, intelligence and flexibility, providing strong technical support for the company's document management and auditing work.

[0037] Specifically, when the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient exceeds a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, it is determined whether the stamp quality of the corresponding physical stamp on the electronic version of the document meets the preset requirements, including: When the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient exceeds a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, the grayscale values ​​of all pixels included in the target grayscale image are retrieved; Extracting pixel points in the target grayscale image whose grayscale values ​​are lower than a preset second grayscale threshold as first target pixel points; wherein the preset second grayscale threshold is smaller than the preset first grayscale threshold; Extracting the pixel coverage area corresponding to the first target pixel; Extracting pixel points whose grayscale values ​​in the target grayscale image are greater than a preset first grayscale threshold as second target pixel points; Extracting the pixel coverage area corresponding to the second target pixel; Obtain a physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient by using the pixel coverage area corresponding to the first target pixel and the pixel coverage area corresponding to the second target pixel in combination with the grayscale value of the first target pixel and the grayscale value of the second target pixel; The physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient is obtained by the following formula: Where Q represents the physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient; k represents the number of first target pixel points; m represents the number of second target pixel points; S h01 S represents the pixel coverage area corresponding to the first target pixel; h02 S represents the pixel coverage area corresponding to the second target pixel; 01 and S 02 Respectively represent the first area value and the second area value; H 01i represents the gray value corresponding to the i-th first target pixel; H 02i represents the gray value corresponding to the i-th second target pixel; H 01z represents the middle grayscale value corresponding to the k first target pixels; H 02z represents the middle value of the grayscale values ​​corresponding to the m second target pixels; E represents the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient; E0 represents the preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold; Comparing the physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient with a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold; When the physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient is lower than the preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, it is determined that the physical stamp quality does not meet the preset requirements, and the user is prompted to re-stamp.

[0038] The technical effect of the above technical solution is that by simultaneously considering the first target pixel points whose grayscale values ​​are lower than the second grayscale threshold and the second target pixel points whose grayscale values ​​are higher than the first grayscale threshold in the target grayscale image, the solution can more comprehensively analyze the quality of the physical stamp. This includes a detailed analysis of the darker parts (which may indicate that the stamp is unclear or missing) and the brighter parts (which may indicate that the stamp is too thick or has spots) in the stamp area.

[0039] Refined grayscale analysis: By extracting the grayscale values ​​of the first target pixel and the second target pixel and their coverage area, and combining the median grayscale values ​​of these pixels, the scheme can more finely evaluate the uniformity and clarity of the stamp. This analysis helps to identify potential problems in stamping, such as local unclearness and uneven color. The evaluation coefficient Q in the scheme not only takes into account the number and grayscale values ​​of pixels, but also combines the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient E and the preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold E0. Through the above evaluation process, the evaluation threshold can be dynamically adjusted according to the overall situation of the stamp, thereby more accurately reflecting the quality of the stamp. By comparing the physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient Q with the preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, the system can automatically determine whether the stamp quality meets the preset requirements. If it does not meet the requirements, the system will also prompt the user to re-seal, thereby avoiding subsequent problems caused by substandard stamp quality. The scheme greatly improves the efficiency and accuracy of stamp quality review in an automated and intelligent way. This helps to reduce the workload and error rate of manual review while ensuring the quality and compliance of stamped documents.

[0040] In summary, this technical solution provides more reliable technical support for the document management and auditing of enterprises by introducing the physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient Q and comprehensively considering multiple factors to comprehensively and finely evaluate the stamp quality. This not only improves the efficiency and accuracy of the audit, but also helps to ensure the compliance and quality of the stamped documents.

[0041] The version change submission includes the following steps: If the archived document needs to be resubmitted for review due to changes, the reviewer selects the original submission form in the review system to start a new round of submission; The review system automatically generates new review tasks based on the version records and archived data of the original review form, and retains historical review opinions as reference information; The review process for new review tasks follows the sequence of review document creation and verification, professional document review, inter-professional review and comparison, and review archiving and stamping application. Upon completion, the current archived version record is updated, and the source and content of changes to the historical version are noted.

[0042] In the above embodiment, the change submission is initiated based on the original submission form to avoid repeated creation of submission tasks and improve efficiency. The review system retains historical review opinions and version records to provide reference for reviewers and auditors. The new round of submission uses the original process framework, which reduces repeated configuration time and improves the overall operation efficiency of the review system. In the above embodiment, when the archived file needs to be resubmitted due to content changes, the reviewer finds the original submission form through the review system and starts a new submission process. When the review system generates a new submission task, it will retain the original version record and review history data, and mark the "change source" field to explain the reason for the change. The new submission task is carried out in the order of creation verification of the submission file, review of professional files, and review comparison between professionals. Finally, after completing a new round of review, the review system will update the archived file to the latest version and mark the specific content involved in this change in the historical record.

[0043] The above description is only a preferred specific implementation manner of the present invention, but the protection scope of the present invention is not limited thereto. Any technician familiar with the technical field can make equivalent replacements or changes according to the technical scheme and inventive concept of the present invention within the technical scope disclosed by the present invention, which should be covered by the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents, characterized in that: The following steps are involved: Project task allocation: the project leader distributes the tasks of engineering settlement documents through the review system and specifies the corresponding persons responsible for submission and review; The submission document is created and verified. The submission operator logs into the review system and submits the submission data according to the task requirements. The review system performs a preliminary verification on the submission data. The verified data is transmitted to the back-end service layer via the front-end interface. The back-end service layer assigns corresponding reviewers to the submission data of each profession. Professional document review: each professional reviewer obtains the documents to be reviewed assigned by the review system, and enters the corresponding review page to review them one by one; Inter-disciplinary review comparison: after each discipline passes the review, it is determined whether all disciplines have completed the review. If there are disciplines that have not passed the review, the review system will return the results to the reviewer. When all professional reviews are completed, the review system will archive the review content into a final version file and generate a version record. The reviewer can apply for a seal through the review system, and the review will be completed after the seal is completed. Version change submission. If the reviewed document needs to be resubmitted due to changes, the user initiates a new submission process based on the original submission form.

2. A method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that: In the project task allocation, the task is in the form of a submission form, which includes civil engineering, installation and gardening majors.

3. A method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that: In the verification of the submitted documents, the submitted data includes civil engineering, installation and gardening; Use regular expressions to verify whether the format of the submitted data meets the requirements; Verify the integrity and content correctness of data through custom validation rules, and generate feedback information in real time for erroneous data to prompt users to make corrections; After the data verification is passed, the front-end interface transmits the review data to the back-end service layer; The back-end service layer analyzes the submitted data and automatically classifies the submitted data into different disciplines according to the task allocation records; The review system assigns corresponding reviewers to each major and sends review notifications to the reviewers.

4. A method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that: The professional document review specifically includes the following steps: During the review of civil engineering, the civil engineering auditor will check the submitted documents item by item. After the review is completed, the front end will submit the review results to the back end. The back end will store the review results in the database and feedback to the submitter and auditor. During the installation professional review, the installation auditor completes the installation professional review process in the same way as the civil engineering professional review; During the review of the landscape major, the landscape auditor completes the review process of the landscape major in the same way as the review of the civil engineering major.

5. A method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that: The inter-professional proofreading and comparison specifically includes the following steps: After each professional review is completed, the review system will record the review results into the database and trigger the review comparison function between majors; The review system checks the review status of other disciplines based on the database records to see whether it is completed; If all majors pass the review, the review system automatically determines that the review is completed and proceeds to the next step; If there are majors that have not passed the review, the review system will prompt the reviewer to wait for the review of the unfinished majors to be completed and update the review progress.

6. A method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that: In the review and filing stamping application, the reviewer initiates a stamping application through the review system and selects a stamping type, which includes a physical stamp and an electronic signature. The review system assigns a corresponding approver based on the stamping type.

7. A method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents as claimed in claim 6, characterized in that: The application for proofreading, archiving and stamping specifically includes the following steps: After applying for a physical seal, the review system assigns a seal reviewer to conduct online approval. After approval, the seal is stamped offline to complete the physical seal stamping process; After applying for an electronic signature, the user submits the electronic version of the result document to be signed. The review system calls the third-party electronic signature service to complete the signature and returns the signed document to the user. After stamping is completed, the review system updates the review status to completed, ending the review process.

8. A method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents as claimed in claim 7, characterized in that: The application for proofreading, archiving and stamping specifically includes the following steps: After the physical seal is stamped, the user is prompted to upload the electronic version of the document with the physical seal stamped; After receiving the electronic version of the document with the physical seal, scanning the electronic version of the document with the physical seal to obtain the corresponding physical seal area on the electronic version of the document; Extracting the coverage area of ​​the stamp lines in the physical stamp area as the first area value; Retrieving from the database the standard coverage area of ​​the seal lines of the electronic seal corresponding to the physical seal as the second area value; Performing grayscale processing on the area stamped with the physical seal to obtain a target grayscale image corresponding to the area stamped with the physical seal; Retrieving pixel points whose grayscale values ​​are not less than a preset first grayscale threshold from the pixel points included in the target grayscale image, and integrating them into a pixel point set; Obtaining a stamp integrity evaluation coefficient by combining the grayscale value in the pixel point set with the first area value and the second area value; The stamp integrity evaluation coefficient is obtained by the following formula: Where E represents the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient; n represents the number of pixels contained in the pixel set; H i Represents the grayscale value corresponding to the i-th pixel in the pixel set; H y01 represents the preset first grayscale threshold; S 01 and S 02 Respectively represent the first area value and the second area value; H z Indicates the difference between the central grayscale value corresponding to the target grayscale image and the grayscale minimum value of the stamp line of the electronic stamp corresponding to the physical stamp; Comparing the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient with a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold; When the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient exceeds a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, it is determined whether the stamp quality of the corresponding physical stamp on the electronic version of the document meets the preset requirements.

9. A method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents as claimed in claim 8, characterized in that: When the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient exceeds the preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, it is determined whether the stamp quality of the corresponding physical stamp on the electronic version of the document meets the preset requirements, including: When the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient exceeds a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, the grayscale values ​​of all pixels included in the target grayscale image are retrieved; Extracting pixel points in the target grayscale image whose grayscale values ​​are lower than a preset second grayscale threshold as first target pixel points; wherein the preset second grayscale threshold is smaller than the preset first grayscale threshold; Extracting the pixel coverage area corresponding to the first target pixel; Extracting pixel points whose grayscale values ​​in the target grayscale image are greater than a preset first grayscale threshold as second target pixel points; Extracting the pixel coverage area corresponding to the second target pixel; Obtain a physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient by using the pixel coverage area corresponding to the first target pixel and the pixel coverage area corresponding to the second target pixel in combination with the grayscale value of the first target pixel and the grayscale value of the second target pixel; The physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient is obtained by the following formula: Where Q represents the physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient; k represents the number of first target pixel points; m represents the number of second target pixel points; S h01 S represents the pixel coverage area corresponding to the first target pixel; h02 S represents the pixel coverage area corresponding to the second target pixel; 01 and S 02 Respectively represent the first area value and the second area value; H 01i represents the gray value corresponding to the i-th first target pixel; H 02i represents the gray value corresponding to the i-th second target pixel; H 01z represents the middle grayscale value corresponding to the k first target pixels; H 02z represents the middle value of the grayscale values ​​corresponding to the m second target pixels; E represents the stamp integrity evaluation coefficient; E0 represents the preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold; Comparing the physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient with a preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold; When the physical stamp quality evaluation coefficient is lower than the preset integrity evaluation coefficient threshold, it is determined that the physical stamp quality does not meet the preset requirements, and the user is prompted to re-stamp.

10. A method for creating, submitting and reviewing engineering settlement documents as claimed in claim 1, characterized in that: The version change submission for review also includes the following steps: If the archived document needs to be resubmitted for review due to changes, the reviewer selects the original submission form in the review system to start a new round of submission; The review system automatically generates new review tasks based on the version records and archived data of the original review form, and retains historical review opinions as reference information; The review process for new review tasks follows the sequence of review document creation and verification, professional document review, inter-professional review and comparison, and review archiving and stamping application. Upon completion, the current archived version record is updated, and the source and content of changes to the historical version are noted.

Images