A dual-control method and system for risk classification and management and hidden danger investigation and treatment

Abstract

A dual-control method and system for risk classification and management and hidden danger investigation and treatment, relating to the field of inspection, is disclosed. The method includes: extracting records from historically archived closed-loop work orders and grouping them according to equipment identification codes and fault location codes; arranging the records within each group chronologically, using the time interval between the "previous closed-loop to subsequent reporting" of adjacent work orders as the rectification survival time, and constructing a fault recurrence time sequence chain. After a new hidden danger work order is reported, the corresponding time sequence chain is retrieved using the target equipment identification code and location code; when a match is found, the rectification survival time within a preset window period is extracted, and the difference between the earliest and most recent duration is divided by the number of rectifications within the window period to obtain the single-time attenuation amount; if the single-time attenuation amount exceeds a preset attenuation threshold, the current work order's regular flow path is intercepted, and it is transferred to an escalation approval node. Implementing this method can enable the more timely detection of repeatedly worsening high-risk hidden dangers.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This application relates to the field of inspection, and in particular to a dual control method and system for risk classification and control and hidden danger investigation and management. Background Technology

[0002] With the rapid development of the new energy industry, the scale of power stations continues to expand, and management models are gradually evolving towards regionalization and reduced staffing. The sheer number of equipment at these stations and the complex operating environment mean that equipment failures and safety hazards are often dispersed and recurring. To ensure the safe operation of these stations, the industry has generally established a hazard identification and management system. Through the reporting, rectification, and closed-loop management of hazard work orders, the system tracks and addresses equipment failures and safety hazards.

[0003] In related technologies, the tiered handling of hazard work orders typically employs a static rule-based matching method. When frontline personnel report a hazard work order, the system matches fields such as equipment type, fault category, and severity level in the work order against a pre-configured rule table. Based on the matching results, the work order is assigned to the corresponding level of the approval process, flowing through fixed approval nodes until a closed loop is achieved. The entire tiered determination process relies on a one-time matching between the attribute information carried by the work order itself and the preset rules.

[0004] However, during the long-term operation of the site, some equipment exhibits recurring faults in the same area; that is, after a previous rectification of a potential hazard is completed, the same fault reappears in the same location within a short period of time. The static rule matching method described above only independently judges each work order based on its own attribute fields, resulting in isolated work orders. The system cannot perceive the evolution trend of the same fault in the same area of ​​the same equipment over time. When the recurrence frequency of a fault in a certain equipment area continues to accelerate, such work orders are still processed according to the conventional hierarchical flow, leading to the failure to promptly identify and control repeatedly worsening high-risk hazards, increasing the risk of safety accidents. Summary of the Invention

[0005] This application provides a dual-control method and system for risk classification and management and hidden danger investigation and treatment, which is used to enable high-risk hidden dangers that are repeatedly worsening to be detected more promptly.

[0006] Firstly, this application provides a dual-control method for risk classification and control and hidden danger investigation and management, applied to a dual-control management system. The method includes: extracting work order record information from archived historical closed-loop work orders; grouping the work order record information according to the same equipment identification code and fault location code; arranging the work orders in chronological order within each group; calculating the time interval between adjacent work orders from the closure of the preceding work order to the reporting of the subsequent work order as the rectification survival time; and constructing a fault recurrence time sequence chain by arranging the rectification survival times within each group in chronological order; obtaining newly reported current hidden danger work orders; and extracting the current hidden danger work orders. The corresponding target equipment identification code and target part code are used to retrieve the corresponding fault recurrence time sequence chain. When a fault recurrence time sequence chain is retrieved, the survival time of each rectification within the most recent preset window period in the fault recurrence time sequence chain is obtained. The difference between the survival time of the earliest rectification within the preset window period and the survival time of the most recent rectification is calculated. The ratio of the difference to the number of rectifications within the preset window period is used as the single attenuation amount. When the single attenuation amount exceeds the preset attenuation threshold, the normal flow path of the current hidden danger work order is blocked and the current hidden danger work order is transferred to the escalation approval node.

[0007] In the above embodiments, a fault recurrence timeline chain is constructed from historical closed-loop work orders. The rectification survival time between adjacent work orders is organized chronologically to form a record of fault recurrence behavior for specific equipment and specific parts. When a new work order is reported, the system uses the single attenuation amount to measure the rate of contraction of rectification survival time within a preset window period. This indicator directly reflects the accelerating trend of fault recurrence frequency. When the single attenuation amount exceeds a preset attenuation threshold, the system intercepts the normal workflow path and transfers the work order to an escalation approval node. This ensures that repeatedly worsening equipment hazards are identified and incorporated into higher-level control processes during the work order workflow stage, compensating for the deficiency of static rule matching methods in being unable to perceive cross-work order temporal evolution trends.

[0008] In conjunction with some embodiments of the first aspect, in some embodiments, after the step of arranging the survival time of each rectification within each group in chronological order to construct a fault recurrence time sequence chain, the method further includes: extracting the maintenance measure code corresponding to each work order; and associating the maintenance measure code with the corresponding node in the fault recurrence time sequence chain.

[0009] In the above embodiments, when constructing the fault recurrence time-series chain, the maintenance measure code corresponding to each work order is associated with the corresponding node in the time-series chain. This allows the fault recurrence time-series chain to simultaneously save records of the specific measures taken for each rectification, in addition to recording the evolution information over time. The association between the maintenance measure code and the node provides a structured data foundation for subsequent comparison of current and historical maintenance measures. This supports the system in determining whether maintenance plans are duplicated during the work order flow stage, enabling the time-series chain to track the effectiveness of measures.

[0010] In conjunction with some embodiments of the first aspect, in some embodiments, the step of intercepting the normal flow path of the current hidden danger work order and transferring the current hidden danger work order to the escalation approval node specifically includes: intercepting the normal flow path of the current hidden danger work order, obtaining the current maintenance measure code entered for the current hidden danger work order, comparing the current maintenance measure code with the maintenance measure codes associated with each node in the most recent preset round in the fault recurrence sequence chain; when the current maintenance measure code is the same as any maintenance measure code in the most recent preset round, rejecting the submission and flow of the current hidden danger work order; when the current maintenance measure code is different from all maintenance measure codes in the most recent preset round, transferring the current hidden danger work order to the escalation approval node.

[0011] In the above embodiment, after intercepting the regular workflow path, the maintenance measure code entered in the current hidden danger work order is compared with the maintenance measure codes associated with each node in the most recent preset round of the time sequence chain. When the current maintenance measure code is the same as any code in the historical round, the system rejects the submission of the work order, preventing duplicate invalid measures from entering the approval process; when the current maintenance measure code is different from all codes in the historical round, the system forwards the work order to the escalated approval node. This comparison mechanism performs pre-screening of the differences in maintenance plans at the work order submission stage, reducing the probability of repeatedly using ineffective measures and avoiding the repeated occupation of approval resources by invalid plans.

[0012] In conjunction with some embodiments of the first aspect, in some embodiments, after the step of intercepting the normal flow path of the current hidden danger work order and transferring the current hidden danger work order to the escalation approval node when the single attenuation amount exceeds the preset attenuation threshold, the method further includes: in response to the current hidden danger work order being accepted at the escalation approval node, marking the current maintenance measure code as a valid maintenance measure, extracting the same-source batch identifier associated with the target equipment identification code, and filtering out the same-source equipment set in the equipment ledger according to the same-source batch identifier; querying whether there is a fault recurrence time sequence chain for each piece of equipment in the same-source equipment set under the target part code, sorting the equipment with fault recurrence time sequence chains in descending order of the single attenuation amount corresponding to each piece of equipment, and sorting the equipment without fault recurrence time sequence chains in descending order of the cumulative running time of each piece of equipment and arranging them after the equipment with fault recurrence time sequence chains, merging them to form an investigation priority queue; and generating special prevention and investigation tasks for the equipment in the same-source equipment set in sequence according to the order of the investigation priority queue, wherein the special prevention and investigation task includes valid maintenance measures and target part codes.

[0013] In the above embodiments, after the current hidden danger work order is accepted at the escalation approval node, the current maintenance measure is coded and marked as a valid maintenance measure. Using the batch identifier associated with the target equipment as an index, a set of equipment from the same source is selected from the equipment ledger. The sorting rules of the investigation priority queue comprehensively reflect the degree of fault recurrence and deterioration of each piece of equipment and its cumulative runtime, prioritizing equipment showing an accelerating trend of recurrence in the investigation plan. Equipment without recurrence records but with a long cumulative runtime is then arranged in order of operational load. The special prevention and investigation task includes valid maintenance measures and target location codes, enabling the preventive investigation of equipment from the same source to form a structured batch advancement path after acceptance.

[0014] In conjunction with some embodiments of the first aspect, in some embodiments, after the step of retrieving the corresponding fault recurrence time-series chain using the target equipment identification code and the target location code, the method further includes: when no fault recurrence time-series chain corresponding to the target equipment identification code and the target location code is found, extracting the target equipment type code from the equipment ledger based on the target equipment identification code, and retrieving each existing fault recurrence time-series chain in the same type of equipment group using the target equipment type code and the target location code; calculating the single attenuation amount of each fault recurrence time-series chain in the same type of equipment group within a preset window period, and statistically analyzing the proportion of the number of fault recurrence time-series chains with a single attenuation amount exceeding a preset attenuation threshold to the total number of all fault recurrence time-series chains in the same type of equipment group as the group attenuation trigger rate; when the group attenuation trigger rate exceeds a preset group threshold, marking the current hidden danger work order as a group risk-related work order, intercepting the normal flow path of the current hidden danger work order, and transferring the current hidden danger work order to the escalation approval node.

[0015] In the above embodiments, when the target device has not yet accumulated a fault recurrence time sequence chain under the target location coding, the system instead searches for existing fault recurrence time sequence chains in the same group of similar devices, and quantifies the prevalence of shortened rectification survival time in the same location for similar devices using the group decay trigger rate. When this rate exceeds a preset group threshold, the system marks the current work order as a group risk-related work order and transfers it to the escalation approval node. This allows for control upgrades to be triggered by group statistical signals even when the historical records of a single device are insufficient, expanding the applicability of the single decay determination mechanism in scenarios involving new devices or devices with low historical frequency.

[0016] In conjunction with some embodiments of the first aspect, in some embodiments, after the step of sequentially generating special prevention and investigation tasks for devices in the same source device set according to the order of the investigation priority queue, the method further includes: in response to any device in the same source device set completing a special prevention and investigation task, receiving an investigation result identifier returned by the device that completed the special prevention and investigation task, the investigation result identifier including a fault reproduction identifier or a fault non-reproduction identifier; calculating the ratio of the number of devices in the same source device set that have completed the special prevention and investigation task and returned a fault reproduction identifier to the total number of devices that have completed the special prevention and investigation task as the actual reproduction ratio; when the actual reproduction ratio exceeds a preset reproduction threshold, raising the investigation priority level of the remaining devices in the investigation priority queue that have not yet executed the special prevention and investigation task to the emergency level, and shortening the execution period of the special prevention and investigation task corresponding to the remaining devices to a preset compression ratio of the original execution period.

[0017] In the above embodiments, during the execution of a special prevention and investigation task on a set of devices from the same source, the system continuously receives the investigation result identifiers of each device, and uses the proportion of devices with identified fault reproduction as the actual reproduction rate. When the actual reproduction rate exceeds a preset reproduction threshold, the system upgrades the investigation priority of the remaining devices in the investigation priority queue that have not yet executed tasks to the emergency level, and shortens the execution period to a preset compression ratio of the original execution period. The actual reproduction rate serves as a dynamic monitoring indicator, enabling the urgency of investigating the remaining devices to be adjusted in real time based on the actual reproduction status of the completed devices, avoiding a lag in response when a fixed investigation plan is implemented when the fault spreads widely.

[0018] In conjunction with some embodiments of the first aspect, in some embodiments, the priority level of the remaining devices in the priority queue that have not yet performed a special prevention and investigation task is raised to the emergency level. Specifically, this includes: obtaining the cumulative runtime of each device in the same source device set that has returned a fault reproduction mark, and calculating the average of the cumulative runtime of each device that has returned a fault reproduction mark as the average reproduction runtime; filtering the remaining devices from the priority queue, extracting the cumulative runtime of each remaining device, and calculating the absolute value of the difference between the cumulative runtime of each remaining device and the average reproduction runtime as the operating deviation value; reordering the remaining devices according to the operating deviation value in ascending order, and uniformly raising the priority level of the reordered remaining devices to the emergency level.

[0019] In the above embodiments, the average cumulative runtime of each device that has returned a fault reproduction flag is used as the average reproduction runtime. The absolute value of the difference between the cumulative runtime of each remaining device in the priority queue and this average is calculated as the operating deviation value. The remaining devices are then reordered in ascending order of operating deviation value. Devices with smaller operating deviation values ​​have cumulative runtimes close to the average of the reproduced devices, indicating a higher probability of the same fault occurring under similar operating conditions. Prioritizing the investigation of these devices can improve the targeting of the investigation within a limited time, providing data support for the investigation order after emergency upgrades.

[0020] In a second aspect, embodiments of this application provide a dual-control system for governance, the dual-control system for governance comprising: one or more processors and a memory; the memory is coupled to the one or more processors, the memory is used to store computer program code, the computer program code including computer instructions, and the one or more processors call the computer instructions to cause the dual-control system for governance to perform the method described in the first aspect and any possible implementation thereof.

[0021] Thirdly, embodiments of this application provide a computer program product containing instructions that, when the computer program product is run on a dual-control system, cause the dual-control system to execute the method described in the first aspect and any possible implementation thereof.

[0022] Fourthly, embodiments of this application provide a computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed on a dual-control system, cause the dual-control system to perform the method described in the first aspect and any possible implementation thereof.

[0023] Understandably, the dual-control governance system provided in the second aspect, the computer program product provided in the third aspect, and the computer storage medium provided in the fourth aspect are all used to execute the methods provided in the embodiments of this application. Therefore, the beneficial effects they can achieve can be referred to the beneficial effects in the corresponding methods, and will not be repeated here.

[0024] One or more technical solutions provided in the embodiments of this application have at least the following technical effects or advantages:

[0025] 1. By adopting a scheme that constructs a fault recurrence time sequence chain from historical closed-loop work orders and uses the single attenuation amount within a preset window period as the judgment indicator, the system can quantitatively evaluate the evolution trend of faults in the same part of the same equipment over time. When the single attenuation amount exceeds the preset attenuation threshold, the normal flow path is intercepted and the work order is transferred to the escalation approval node. This effectively solves the problem that the static rule matching method in the existing technology cannot perceive the cross-work order time sequence evolution trend, thereby realizing the identification and control upgrade of repeatedly deteriorating high-risk hazards in the work order flow stage.

[0026] 2. Because the system adopts a scheme that associates the maintenance measure code with the corresponding node in the fault recurrence sequence chain and compares the current maintenance measure code with the maintenance measure codes of each node in the most recent preset round of the sequence chain after intercepting the work order, the system can perform pre-screening of the differences in maintenance plans at the work order submission stage. This effectively solves the problem of repeated submission of the same invalid measures and repeated occupation of approval resources in the prior art, and thus realizes the mandatory verification of the substantial differences in maintenance plans.

[0027] 3. By using the same batch identifier as an index to filter the set of same-source devices, and sorting them by single attenuation amount and cumulative running time to form a priority queue for investigation, and generating a special prevention and investigation task plan containing effective maintenance measures and target part codes for each device in the queue, the system can extend the verified measures to the group of same-source devices after the upgrade and rectification of a single device is completed. This effectively solves the problem that the management of equipment hidden dangers in the existing technology is limited to the independent closed loop of a single device and the potential risks of same-source devices cannot be systematically prevented. Thus, it realizes the extension from individual rectification to batch prevention and control. Attached Figure Description

[0028] Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating a dual-control method for risk classification and control and hidden danger investigation and management in the embodiments of this application;

[0029] Figure 2 This is another flowchart illustrating the dual control method of risk classification and control and hidden danger investigation and management in the embodiments of this application;

[0030] Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the physical device structure of a dual-control system for governance in an embodiment of this application. Detailed Implementation

[0031] The terminology used in the following embodiments of this application is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of this application. As used in the specification of this application, the singular expressions “a,” “an,” “the,” “the,” and “this” are intended to include the plural expressions as well, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It should also be understood that the term “and / or” as used in this application refers to any or all possible combinations including one or more of the listed items.

[0032] Hereinafter, the terms "first" and "second" are used for descriptive purposes only and should not be construed as implying or suggesting relative importance or implicitly indicating the number of indicated technical features. Thus, a feature defined as "first" or "second" may explicitly or implicitly include one or more of that feature, and in the description of the embodiments of this application, unless otherwise stated, "multiple" means two or more.

[0033] To facilitate understanding, the application scenarios of the embodiments of this application are described below.

[0034] The risk classification and control and hidden danger investigation and management dual control method based on AI technology provided in this application embodiment can be applied to the safety management scenarios of various engineering project sites, especially suitable for application scenarios such as new energy power stations, large industrial facilities, and infrastructure projects with a large number of equipment, complex operating environments, and management models evolving towards regionalization and reduced staffing. The application scenario is explained below using a new energy power station as an example.

[0035] In related technologies, the safety management of new energy power plants mainly relies on regular inspections by dedicated safety personnel and paper-based record-keeping. Even if on-site personnel in non-safety positions discover equipment abnormalities or safety hazards during their work, they lack convenient data entry tools and clear feedback channels, resulting in a large amount of hazard information failing to enter the systematic handling process in a timely manner. When a hazard is reported, the system matches the equipment type, fault category, and other attribute fields in the work order according to a pre-configured static rule table, assigning the work order to the corresponding level of approval process for sequential flow until closure. During this process, each work order is isolated from the others, and the system cannot perceive the accelerating trend of the recurrence frequency of faults in the same part of the same equipment. High-risk hazards that repeatedly worsen are always handled at the conventional level. At the same time, after the rectification of a single piece of equipment is completed and closed, there is a lack of a mechanism to extend preventive inspections to the same batch and type of equipment, and the potential risks of equipment from the same source cannot be systematically covered. In addition, risk classification and control and hazard investigation and management operate independently. The results of risk level determination cannot drive the adjustment of investigation direction and frequency, and the results of investigation and management cannot be fed back to optimize risk assessment. There is a lack of data sharing and mechanism linkage between the two.

[0036] The AI-based risk classification and control and hazard investigation and management dual-control method adopted in this application provides a mobile terminal for rapid data entry to all on-site personnel. When on-site personnel discover safety issues during daily work or inspections, they can take photos of the problem site using their mobile terminals, fill in information such as the problem description, location, professional classification, inspection level, location of the problem, and supervisor, and submit the information directly. Submitted information is automatically transferred to safety supervisors for tracking and supervision, ensuring that the problem enters a closed-loop processing flow. After various special safety inspections are completed, inspectors can also enter inspection records and lists of discovered issues through the system, achieving structured recording and systematic follow-up of inspection results. This promotes the implementation of the safety management concept that "everyone is a safety officer," enabling safety hazards to be "discovered, recorded, and dealt with early."

[0037] Once a potential problem is entered into the system, the system organizes professionals to assess the risk level and impact scope of the confirmed issue, clarifies the priority of rectification, and formulates a targeted rectification plan based on the assessment results, specifying the responsible person, rectification measures, and completion deadline. During this process, the system not only assesses the problem based on its own attribute fields but also constructs a fault recurrence timeline chain from archived historical closed-loop work orders. It organizes the rectification survival time of adjacent work orders for the same equipment and the same part in chronological order. When a new work order is reported, the system uses the single-time attenuation amount to measure the rate of contraction of the rectification survival time within a preset window period. Taking the sealing part of the cooling system of a piece of equipment at a certain site as an example, this part experienced four similar faults in the past year. The time intervals between each previous rectification and the next fault were 120 days, 80 days, and 45 days, respectively, showing a clear accelerating contraction trend. If the preset window period covers the most recent three rectifications, the single-time attenuation amount is (120-45) / 3 = 25 days. When the single attenuation exceeds the preset attenuation threshold, the system automatically intercepts the work order's regular workflow and forwards it to a higher-level approval node. Higher-level management then conducts a special review and decision-making process for the recurring equipment hazard. Simultaneously, the system compares the currently proposed maintenance measure code with maintenance measure codes from previous cycles in the fault recurrence sequence. If the current measure is found to be identical to a recently used measure, the work order submission is rejected, and the rectification personnel are required to revise the maintenance plan and resubmit it, avoiding the repeated use of measures that have already been proven ineffective. The person responsible for rectification proceeds with the rectification according to the plan, and can initiate rectification extension or cancellation requests based on the actual situation. After rectification is completed, an acceptance application is submitted. After review and acceptance by safety supervisors, if the acceptance is successful, the problem is successfully eliminated and the rectification process is closed; if the acceptance is unsuccessful, a new rectification plan must be developed until the standard is met.

[0038] After the potential hazards of a single piece of equipment are accepted at the escalation approval stage, the system marks the verified and effective maintenance measures as valid maintenance measures. Using the batch identifier of the same equipment as an index, it filters all similar equipment from the equipment ledger. The system constructs a priority queue for investigation based on factors such as whether there is a fault recurrence timeline, the magnitude of single attenuation, and the cumulative runtime of each similar piece of equipment. It then generates specific prevention and investigation tasks for each piece of equipment in the queue order, including valid maintenance measures and target part codes, systematically extending individual rectification experience to the group of similar equipment. During the investigation process, the system continuously calculates the fault reproduction rate among the investigated equipment. When the actual reproduction rate exceeds a preset threshold, it automatically upgrades the investigation priority of the remaining equipment that has not yet been investigated to the emergency level and shortens the execution period. This allows the investigation plan to be dynamically adjusted according to the actual reproduction situation, avoiding response delays when the fault spreads widely.

[0039] Meanwhile, based on the risk level of each piece of equipment and work area, the system regularly pushes risk supervision and inspection tasks to relevant responsible personnel. Those receiving the tasks are required to complete the on-site inspection of the corresponding risk work area within the specified inspection deadline and submit the inspection record in the system. Any problems discovered during the inspection must be simultaneously entered into the system and included in the closed-loop management of the problem rectification module. Through this risk supervision record push mechanism, the judgment results of risk classification and control can proactively drive the direction and frequency of hazard investigation, and the results of hazard investigation and management can in turn update the risk level assessment, forming a continuous iterative cycle of "risk control—hazard investigation—rectification closed loop—risk update".

[0040] Furthermore, with the expansion of the distribution range of facilities and the promotion of unmanned operation mode, the dual-control system can be further integrated into intelligent mobile terminals to build a multi-level remote monitoring system, realizing real-time, remote, and penetrating monitoring of widely distributed facilities. On this basis, the system can also be integrated with intelligent inspection equipment such as drones and inspection robots to replace traditional manual inspections, achieving full coverage and no blind spots in key areas of facilities and improving the rate of hazard detection. Data sensors can be deployed on core equipment to collect key safety data such as temperature, pressure, and flow in real time, and the system can visualize the data and provide early warnings of abnormal fluctuations. External data such as meteorological data can be integrated and automatically analyzed through AI models to achieve early prediction and graded early warning of risks, providing decision support for proactive prevention and control. The abnormal information discovered by the above intelligent means can all be used as data sources for hazard work orders and input into the dual-control system, forming a synergy with core mechanisms such as fault recurrence time-series analysis, single-time attenuation calculation, and batch inspection of equipment from the same source, further strengthening the linkage efficiency between risk classification control and hazard investigation and management.

[0041] As can be seen, by adopting the dual control method of risk classification and control and hidden danger investigation and management in the embodiments of this application, and by constructing a fault recurrence time sequence chain from historical closed-loop work orders and using the single decay amount as a dynamic judgment indicator, it can not only realize the intelligent closed-loop management of the entire process of hidden danger work orders, but also effectively solve the problems of independent risk classification and control and hidden danger investigation and management in existing technologies, and the inability of static rule matching to perceive the cross-work order time sequence evolution trend. This enables the automatic identification and control upgrade of repeatedly deteriorating high-risk hidden dangers, as well as the systematic extension from individual equipment rectification to batch prevention and control of similar equipment groups, promoting the formation of a two-way feedback and continuous iterative optimization linkage pattern between risk control and hidden danger investigation.

[0042] Before introducing the specific steps, we will first explain the data collection and closed-loop circulation mechanism of the hidden danger work orders in the dual control system. This mechanism provides the source of work order data for the subsequent steps.

[0043] The dual-control system integrates a mobile problem entry module, accessible to all personnel at the site. When safety issues are discovered during routine inspections, on-site personnel can enter them as needed through the mobile terminal's problem entry portal. After various specialized safety inspections, inspectors enter inspection records and a list of discovered issues through the inspection entry portal. The entry elements include two parts: basic information and engineering information. Basic information includes photos of the problem site, a description of the problem, its location, professional classification, and inspection level. Engineering information includes the location of the problem and the person in charge of supervising it. After a problem is submitted, the system automatically transfers the information to safety supervisors for follow-up and supervision, ensuring the problem enters a closed-loop processing flow.

[0044] After a problem enters the system, it goes through four stages: problem assessment, solution development, rectification implementation, and review and acceptance. In the problem assessment stage, after the problem is confirmed, professionals assess its risk level and scope of impact, clarifying the rectification priority. In the solution development stage, a targeted rectification plan is developed based on the assessment results, clearly defining the responsible person, rectification measures, and completion deadline. In the rectification implementation stage, the responsible person promotes rectification according to the plan, and can initiate applications for rectification extension or cancellation based on the actual situation. In the review and acceptance stage, after rectification is completed, the responsible person submits an acceptance application, which is reviewed and accepted by safety supervisors and other relevant parties. If the acceptance is successful, the problem is successfully eliminated and the rectification process is closed; if the acceptance is unsuccessful, a new rectification plan must be developed until the standard is met. Work orders that have passed review and acceptance and completed closed-loop archiving become the historical closed-loop work orders described in subsequent step S101.

[0045] While the aforementioned closed-loop workflow mechanism is in operation, the system also periodically pushes risk supervision and inspection tasks to relevant responsible personnel based on the risk level of each piece of equipment and work area. Personnel receiving the tasks are required to complete the on-site inspection of the corresponding risk work area within the inspection deadline specified by the system and submit the inspection record in the system. Any problems discovered during the inspection must be simultaneously entered into the system and incorporated into the aforementioned closed-loop problem rectification process for management. Through this risk supervision record push mechanism, the risk classification and control judgment results drive the direction and frequency of hazard investigation, and the hazard investigation and control results provide feedback to update the risk level assessment, enabling risk control and hazard investigation to form a continuously iterative and interconnected cycle.

[0046] The following describes the specific steps of the core method for intelligent work order classification and batch investigation of similar devices based on fault recurrence time chain provided in the embodiments of this application.

[0047] To facilitate understanding, the method provided in this implementation will be described in detail below, using the above scenario as an example. Please refer to [link / reference]. Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating a dual-control method for risk classification and control and hidden danger investigation and management in the embodiments of this application.

[0048] S101. Extract work order record information from archived historical closed-loop work orders, and group the work order record information according to the same equipment identification code and fault location code.

[0049] Among them, archived historical closed-loop work orders refer to hazard work order records that have completed the rectification process in the system, been confirmed and approved by the approver, and are in a closed-loop state, and have been stored in the archive database; work order record information refers to structured field data extracted from each historical closed-loop work order, including equipment identification code, fault location code, reporting timestamp, and closed-loop timestamp; equipment identification code refers to the unique identifier of each physical device in the system's equipment ledger, used to distinguish different individual devices; fault location code refers to the identifier formed by standardizing the specific part of the equipment where the fault occurred, used to distinguish different fault locations on the same device; grouping refers to the classification operation performed on the work order record information set based on the combined combination of equipment identification code and fault location code, so that work order records with the same combined combination are grouped together.

[0050] Specifically, all work order records in a closed-loop state are read from the system's historical work order archive. For each record, key fields such as equipment identification code, fault location code, reporting timestamp, and closure timestamp are extracted and aggregated to form a work order record information set. Using the combined equipment identification code and fault location code as the grouping criterion, an aggregation operation is performed on all work order records in the set, grouping work orders with the same equipment identification code and fault location code into the same group. Each work order within a group corresponds to a historical rectification record for the same fault location on the same equipment. Each group is independent of the others based on different combinations, allowing for subsequent construction of fault recurrence time-series chains by group.

[0051] In some embodiments, the extraction and grouping of historical closed-loop work orders by equipment identification code and fault location code can be achieved in several ways: Optionally, using the work order status field as a filter condition in the database, a structured query statement is used to filter out all closed-loop archived work order records. The equipment identification code, fault location code, reporting timestamp, and closed-loop timestamp fields are extracted for each record. A mapping table is constructed in memory using the combined combination of the equipment identification code and fault location code as the key. Work order records with the same key value are appended sequentially to the corresponding mapping list. After traversal, each list represents the corresponding grouping result. Optionally, serialized work order data is batch-fetched from the work order archive file storage. Each data record is deserialized to restore the field values ​​of the work order. The restored work order records are bucketed using the combined primary key of the equipment identification code and fault location code. Work order records under the same combined primary key are grouped into the same data bucket. After traversal of all data buckets, each bucket corresponds to a grouping set. It is understood that other data reading and aggregation methods can also be used to extract and group work order record information; this is not limited here.

[0052] S102. Arrange the work orders in chronological order within each group, calculate the time interval between the closing of the previous work order and the reporting of the subsequent work order between two adjacent work orders as the rectification survival time, and arrange the rectification survival times in chronological order within each group to construct a fault recurrence time sequence chain.

[0053] Among them, "arranged by time sequence" refers to arranging the work order records in ascending order from earliest to latest according to the reporting time of each work order within each group of work orders; "rectification survival time" refers to the time difference between the time when the preceding work order completes the closed loop and the time when the following work order is reported between two adjacent work orders in the time sequence arrangement, which is used to measure the time elapsed from the end of a rectification to the recurrence of the equipment part; "fault recurrence time sequence chain" refers to the ordered numerical sequence formed by arranging the rectification survival times calculated for the same equipment and the same fault part in chronological order, which is used to record the evolution of the fault recurrence behavior of the equipment part in the time dimension; "preceding work order" refers to the work order that is in an earlier position in the time sequence arrangement; "following work order" refers to the work order that appears immediately after the preceding work order in the time sequence arrangement.

[0054] Specifically, within each group, all work order records are sorted in ascending order based on the reporting timestamp of each work order, forming an ordered work order sequence. For each adjacent pair of work orders in the ordered work order sequence, the closing-loop timestamp of the preceding work order is used as the starting point for timing, and the reporting timestamp of the following work order is used as the ending point for timing. The time difference between the two is calculated, and this difference is the rectification survival time corresponding to the adjacent work order pair. The above calculation is performed sequentially on all adjacent work order pairs in each group to obtain the rectification survival time set within the group. Each rectification survival time is arranged in chronological order according to the corresponding adjacent work order pairs to form the fault recurrence time sequence chain corresponding to the group. The time sequence chain is stored in the system using the equipment identification code and the fault location code as index identifiers for subsequent retrieval.

[0055] In some embodiments, the calculation of rectification survival time and the construction of the fault recurrence time sequence can be implemented in multiple ways: Optionally, the reporting timestamp and closing timestamp of all work orders are extracted in each group, and the work order list is sorted in ascending order using the reporting timestamp as the sorting key to form an ordered list; for adjacent work order pairs consisting of work order i at index i and work order i+1 at index i, the closing timestamp of work order i at index i and the reporting timestamp of work order i+1 at index i are taken, and the difference between the two is calculated to obtain the rectification survival time; this calculation is performed sequentially on all adjacent work order pairs in the list; all calculation results are arranged into a sequence in order, and the equipment identification... The fault code and fault location code are stored as keys in the time-series chain storage table to complete the construction of the fault recurrence time-series chain. Optionally, within each group, work orders are converted into an ordered record list in ascending order of reporting time. A two-pointer approach is used to simultaneously maintain forward and backward pointers to two adjacent work orders. Each time, the closed-loop timestamp of the work order pointed to by the forward pointer and the reporting timestamp of the work order pointed to by the backward pointer are taken, and the difference between the two is calculated as the rectification survival time of the current adjacent pair. The calculation result is appended to the time-series chain buffer, and then the two pointers are synchronously moved to the next pair of adjacent work orders. This process is repeated until the end of the list, and all calculation results in the buffer are sequentially concatenated to form the fault recurrence time-series chain and stored. It is understood that other traversal methods and time difference calculation methods can also be used to construct the fault recurrence time-series chain, which is not limited here.

[0056] In some embodiments, the following steps may be included after step S102:

[0057] Extract the maintenance measure code corresponding to each work order;

[0058] The maintenance action code is associated with the corresponding node in the fault recurrence sequence chain.

[0059] This step, building upon the fault recurrence time-series chain constructed in S102, adds the corresponding work order's maintenance measure code to each node in the chain, thus binding maintenance operation information with the fault time-series structure. Specifically, using the fault event identification code as the association key, an exact match query is performed in the work order database to locate the work order record corresponding to the current fault recurrence time-series chain node, and the maintenance measure code field value is read from that work order record. If a work order records multiple maintenance operations, all maintenance measure code values ​​are stored completely in an array without truncation. Using the node's fault event identification code as the write location condition, the maintenance measure code field is written to the data structure of the corresponding node in the fault recurrence time-series chain, and the extracted code value is stored in this field, completing the association write operation for a single node. The above query and write operations are executed sequentially for all nodes in the fault recurrence time-series chain until the maintenance measure code association for each node in the chain is completed. After the association is completed, each node in the time-series chain retains the original fault timing information and adds the corresponding handling measures information for each fault. For example, by reading the maintenance measure codes carried by two adjacent fault nodes in the time-series chain, comparing the changes in the subsequent fault recurrence interval after different handling operations, we can determine the actual effect of specific maintenance measures on suppressing the recurrence of similar faults, and provide a structured data foundation for subsequent fault recurrence pattern analysis and maintenance strategy optimization.

[0060] S103. Obtain the newly reported current hidden danger work order, extract the target equipment identification code and target part code corresponding to the current hidden danger work order, and retrieve the corresponding fault recurrence time sequence chain using the target equipment identification code and target part code.

[0061] Among them, the current hazard work order refers to a hazard work order recently reported by front-line personnel that is pending system processing and has not yet completed hierarchical routing; the target equipment identification code refers to the unique identifier number of the equipment to which the current fault belongs, recorded in the current hazard work order, used to locate the specific equipment in the equipment ledger and time sequence chain index; the target location code refers to the standardized code of the equipment location where the current fault occurred, recorded in the current hazard work order, used in conjunction with the target equipment identification code to locate the specific fault location of the equipment; retrieval refers to using the combined combination of the target equipment identification code and the target location code as the query condition to perform a matching search operation in the fault recurrence time sequence chain index already stored in the system to determine whether there is a historical fault recurrence time sequence chain record for that equipment and that location.

[0062] Specifically, when the system receives a newly reported current hazard work order, it reads the target equipment identification code and target part code from the structured fields of the work order. Using the combination of these two codes as the search key, it performs an exact match search in the system's built fault recurrence time-series chain index. If a record matching the key exists in the index, it means that the equipment and that part have accumulated at least two historical closed-loop work orders and formed a fault recurrence time-series chain. The system retrieves the corresponding time-series chain data for subsequent steps to calculate the single attenuation amount. If no record matching the key exists in the index, it means that the equipment and that part have not accumulated enough historical work orders to form a fault recurrence time-series chain. The system then enters the alternative processing branch when no time-series chain is found.

[0063] In some embodiments, the extraction of the target equipment identification code and the target location code, as well as the retrieval of the corresponding fault recurrence time sequence chain, can be achieved in several ways: Optionally, the complete data message of the current hidden danger work order can be read through the interface of the work order management system, the message structure can be parsed to obtain the values ​​of the equipment identification code field and the fault location code field, and the two can be concatenated to form a composite index key. A primary key query can be performed in the time sequence chain main index table using this key. If a match is found, all corresponding time sequence chain records are returned; otherwise, an empty result is returned and subsequent replacement processing is triggered. Optionally, the work order record can be queried from the work order database using the current work order number as a condition. The equipment identification code field and the fault location code field can be read, and a combined query condition can be constructed using the two fields. A conditional query can be performed in the fault recurrence time sequence chain storage table. If the result set is not empty, all matching records are retrieved as the retrieval result; if the result set is empty, it is determined that there is no fault recurrence time sequence chain for the current equipment location. It is understood that other data extraction and index query methods can also be used to achieve the retrieval and location of the fault recurrence time sequence chain, which is not limited here.

[0064] S104. When a fault recurrence time sequence is retrieved, the survival time of each rectification within the most recent preset window period in the fault recurrence time sequence is obtained, the difference between the survival time of the earliest rectification within the preset window period and the survival time of the most recent rectification is calculated, and the ratio of the difference to the number of rectifications within the preset window period is used as the single decay amount.

[0065] Among them, the preset window period refers to the range parameter pre-configured by the system for extracting recent data segments in the fault recurrence time sequence chain, which can be set in units of time span or number of rectification rounds; the earliest rectification survival time refers to the rectification survival time value at the first position in the data segment extracted in the preset window period, arranged in chronological order, representing the survival time of the earliest rectification that occurred in time within that window period; the most recent rectification survival time refers to the rectification survival time value at the last position in the data segment extracted in the preset window period, arranged in chronological order, representing the survival time of the most recent rectification that occurred in time within that window period; the number of rectifications refers to the total number of rectification survival time records included in the preset window period; the single attenuation amount is the quotient obtained by dividing the total change in rectification survival time within the preset window period by the number of rectifications, used to measure the average reduction of rectification survival time each time within that window period.

[0066] Specifically, after retrieving the fault recurrence time-series chain corresponding to the target equipment identification code and the target part code, a subsequence of rectification survival time corresponding to the most recent preset window period is extracted from this time-series chain. For the extracted subsequence, the element value at the first position in the time sequence is denoted as T_first; the element value at the last position in the time sequence is denoted as T_last. The difference between the two is calculated as D = T_first - T_last. This difference D reflects the overall reduction in rectification survival time from the earliest to the most recent occurrence within the preset window period. When D is positive, it indicates that the rectification survival time shows a contraction trend within the window period. The total number of rectification survival time records contained in the subsequence within the preset window period is counted, denoted as N, representing the number of times the equipment part has undergone rectification within the window period. Dividing the difference D by the number of rectifications N, the single-time attenuation amount R = D / N = (T_first - T_last) / N is obtained. The single-time attenuation amount R represents the magnitude of the reduction in the average survival time after each rectification within the preset window period. The larger the value, the more obvious the acceleration of the fault recurrence frequency.

[0067] In some embodiments, the data extraction within a preset window period and the calculation of single-time attenuation can be achieved in multiple ways: Optionally, using time span as the unit of measurement for the preset window period, the rectification survival duration records that fall within a preset time span preceding the current moment are selected from the fault recurrence time sequence chain. The selection results are arranged in ascending order by node timestamps. The first element value of the sequence is taken as T_first, and the last element value of the sequence is taken as T_last. D=T_first-T_last is calculated, and the total number of sequence elements is taken as N. Substituting these values ​​into the formula R=D / N, the single-time attenuation is obtained. Optionally, using the number of rectification rounds as the unit of measurement for the preset window period, the rectification survival duration records of the most recent preset number of rounds are extracted from the end of the fault recurrence time sequence chain. The earliest time-series record value in the extracted sequence is taken as T_first, and the most recent time-series record value is taken as T_last. D=T_first-T_last is calculated, and the total number of extracted records is taken as N. Substituting these values ​​into the formula R=D / N, the single-time attenuation is obtained. It is understandable that other window delineation strategies and calculation methods can also be used to obtain the single attenuation amount, which is not limited here.

[0068] In some embodiments, after step S104, the following steps may be included: when a fault recurrence time sequence chain is retrieved, the survival time of each rectification within the most recent preset window period in the fault recurrence time sequence chain is obtained, the difference between the earliest rectification survival time and the most recent rectification survival time within the preset window period is calculated, and the ratio of the difference to the number of rectifications within the preset window period is used as the single attenuation amount. In response to the completion of acceptance of the current hidden danger work order at the upgraded approval node, the current maintenance measure code is marked as a valid maintenance measure. The same-source batch identifier associated with the target equipment identification code is extracted, and the same-source equipment set is selected in the equipment ledger according to the same-source batch identifier. The same-source equipment set is queried to see if there is a fault recurrence time sequence chain under the target part code for each equipment. The equipment with fault recurrence time sequence chains are sorted from largest to smallest according to the single attenuation amount corresponding to each equipment. The equipment without fault recurrence time sequence chains are sorted from longest to shortest according to the cumulative running time of each equipment and arranged after the equipment with fault recurrence time sequence chains. They are merged to form an investigation priority queue, and special prevention and investigation tasks are generated for the equipment in the same-source equipment set in sequence according to the order of the investigation priority queue.

[0069] A fault recurrence time-series chain is a chain-like data structure that sequentially links fault events occurring in the same part of the same equipment in chronological order. Each node corresponds to one fault event record. For example, if the bearing part of equipment A experiences the same type of fault at three different times, a time-series chain with three nodes is formed. The preset window period is a pre-configured time length parameter used to extract the recent data range of the time-series chain. For example, if configured to 180 days, only node data from the most recent 180 days in the time-series chain will be used for calculation. The rectification survival time is the time interval between two adjacent fault nodes in the time-series chain, i.e., the time elapsed from the completion of rectification of the previous fault to the recurrence of the same type of fault. For example, if the fault recurs 120 days after the first rectification, the rectification survival time is 120 days. The single-event decay is a calculated value that measures the average deceleration rate of the rectification survival time within the preset window period, reflecting the degree of decline in the effectiveness of equipment rectification of the same type of fault over time. A hazard work order is a task record in the operation and maintenance system that records equipment hazard information and tracks the progress of handling. It includes fields such as hazard description, handling measures, and approval process nodes. The escalation approval node is a specific process node in the hazard work order approval process that requires review and acceptance by higher-level management. Completion of this node indicates that the hazard handling result has been confirmed by the superior. The maintenance measure code is a standardized number for maintenance operations, with values ​​derived from a predefined code library. Marking it as a valid maintenance measure indicates that the corresponding operation has been accepted and confirmed as having actual repair effect. The same-origin batch identifier is a shared identifier field that marks the affiliation of a group of equipment from the same production batch or model configuration. Equipment with the same same-origin batch identifier is consistent in hardware configuration, manufacturing process, and design parameters. The equipment ledger is a database recording basic information of all registered equipment, including fields such as equipment identification code, same-origin batch identifier, commissioning time, and cumulative runtime. The cumulative runtime is the total accumulated operating time of the equipment from commissioning to the current moment. The target location code is a standardized number that identifies the specific location within the equipment that needs to be inspected, used to uniformly locate similar locations in cross-equipment queries. The inspection priority queue is an ordered list of equipment to be inspected, arranged according to priority level. Equipment at the front of the queue is allocated inspection resources first. Specialized prevention and inspection tasks are records of preventative inspection tasks issued for specific parts of specific equipment, with clear execution deadlines and operational requirements.

[0070] This process, based on the fault recurrence time-series chain retrieval completed in S104, sequentially executes five steps: single-time attenuation calculation, effective maintenance measure marking, screening of homogeneous equipment sets, construction of a dual-rule sorting queue, and generation of special prevention and investigation tasks. After retrieving the fault recurrence time-series chain, the preset window period duration is calculated backward from the current time as the cutoff point. All fault nodes falling within this time range are screened in the time-series chain, and the rectification survival duration values ​​between adjacent nodes are extracted to obtain a sequence of rectification survival durations within the window period. The first value in this sequence is determined in chronological order as the earliest rectification survival duration, and the last value is determined as the most recent rectification survival duration. The difference between the two is the total attenuation of rectification survival duration within the window period. At the same time, the total number of fault nodes within the window period is subtracted by 1 to obtain the number of rectifications. The single-time attenuation is obtained by dividing the total attenuation by the number of rectifications. The calculation formula is: Single-time attenuation = (Earliest rectification survival duration - Most recent rectification survival duration) / Number of rectifications. For example, if the earliest rectification survival time within the window period is 90 days, the most recent is 30 days, and the number of rectifications is 3, then the single-time attenuation amount = (90-30) / 3 = 20 days, indicating that the survival time is shortened by an average of 20 days after each rectification. The larger this value, the faster the recurrence trend of the equipment failure in that part. When the approval process of the current hidden danger work order progresses to the upgraded approval node and the acceptance operation of that node is completed, the status field of the maintenance measure code recorded in this work order is written to the "valid maintenance measure" flag value in the maintenance measure code library to complete the validity marking. Then, using the target equipment identification code in the current hidden danger work order as the search key, the corresponding record's same-source batch identifier field value is queried in the equipment ledger; using the same-source batch identifier value as the filter condition, a full table scan query is performed in the equipment ledger to extract all equipment records with the same-source batch identifier field value, thus obtaining the same-source equipment set. For each device in the same source device set, a query is performed in the fault recurrence time-series database using the device identification code and target location code as combined query conditions to determine if a matching record exists. The query results are divided into two subsets: a subset of devices with fault recurrence time-series chains and a subset of devices without fault recurrence time-series chains. For the subset of devices with fault recurrence time-series chains, the calculated single attenuation value for each device is taken and sorted in descending order of single attenuation value. For the subset of devices without fault recurrence time-series chains, the cumulative runtime value for each device is retrieved from the device ledger and sorted in descending order of cumulative runtime. All records of the first subset are placed at the front of the queue, and all records of the second subset are sequentially appended to the back of the queue, merging to form a priority queue for investigation. According to the order of equipment in the priority queue, the equipment identification code is extracted one by one, and a special prevention and investigation task record is created for each equipment in the task management system. Fields such as target part code, execution period and effective maintenance measure code are written, and the task is issued to the corresponding person in charge, so as to complete the generation of special prevention and investigation tasks for all equipment of the same origin.

[0071] S105. When the single attenuation amount exceeds the preset attenuation threshold, the normal flow path of the current hidden danger work order is intercepted and the current hidden danger work order is transferred to the escalation approval node.

[0072] Among them, the preset attenuation threshold refers to the threshold parameter pre-configured by the system to determine whether the single attenuation amount meets the control escalation conditions. This threshold is pre-set during system deployment according to business scenarios and control requirements; the normal flow path refers to the processing path of the current hidden danger work order under the normal processing flow, which is sequentially processed through each normal approval node according to the pre-configured work order classification rules until the loop is closed; interception refers to the system actively interrupting the operation of the current hidden danger work order to continue to flow along the normal flow path, preventing the work order from entering the normal approval node; the upgraded approval node refers to the approval link at a higher level than the normal approval process, which is responsible for reviewing and making decisions on work orders that the system determines need to be upgraded.

[0073] Specifically, the single-time attenuation amount calculated in step S104 is compared with a preset attenuation threshold configured by the system. When the single-time attenuation amount exceeds the preset attenuation threshold, the system determines that the fault recurrence time interval of the equipment part shows a continuously accelerating and shrinking trend. The current hidden danger work order is identified as a high-risk work order that needs to be escalated. The system then interrupts the operation of the work order continuing along the normal workflow path, prevents it from entering the normal approval node, and routes the work order to the corresponding escalation approval node, where higher-level approvers will review and handle the work order. When the single-time attenuation amount does not exceed the preset attenuation threshold, the current hidden danger work order does not trigger the escalation condition and continues to be processed normally according to the normal workflow path.

[0074] In some embodiments, the interception of the regular workflow path and the routing allocation to the escalation approval node can be achieved in several ways: Optionally, a pre-check module is set at the regular path routing determination point in the work order workflow engine. When the current potential work order enters the routing determination stage, the pre-check module reads the single attenuation amount corresponding to the work order and compares it with a preset attenuation threshold. If the single attenuation amount exceeds the preset attenuation threshold, the target routing node of the work order is changed from the regular approval node to the escalation approval node. At the same time, an escalation status flag field is written into the work order record, and the routing information is updated before the work order is triggered to flow to the escalation approval node. Optionally, a dedicated escalation pending approval state is defined in the work order state machine. When the work order enters the pending routing determination state, the scheduling module reads the single attenuation amount corresponding to the work order and compares it with a preset attenuation threshold. If the single attenuation amount exceeds the threshold, the work order state is switched to the escalation pending approval state, the channel for the work order to flow to the regular approval node is closed, and a pending work order notification is pushed to the processing queue corresponding to the escalation approval node, which is received and processed by the personnel of that node. It is understandable that other flow control methods and node routing strategies can also be used to intercept conventional paths and allocate nodes for escalation approval, which is not limited here.

[0075] In some embodiments, step S105 may further include the following steps: intercepting the regular workflow of the current hazard work order, obtaining the current maintenance measure code entered for the current hazard work order, and comparing the current maintenance measure code with the maintenance measure codes associated with each node in the most recent preset round in the fault recurrence sequence chain. When the current maintenance measure code is the same as any maintenance measure code in the most recent preset round, the submission of the current hazard work order is rejected. When the current maintenance measure code is different from all maintenance measure codes in the most recent preset round, the current hazard work order is transferred to the escalation approval node.

[0076] The standard workflow path is the transmission path of a hazard work order through each processing node in the operation and maintenance system according to the default approval process. For example, a work order sequentially goes through entry, submission, team review, and archiving, which is the standard workflow path. Interception is a validation program inserted before the work order workflow logic is executed when the work order submission operation is triggered, blocking the work order from continuing to be transmitted along the standard workflow path. During the interception, the work order status remains unchanged at the current entry node. The current maintenance measure code is the standardized number corresponding to the proposed maintenance operation entered by the maintenance personnel when processing the current hazard work order. The value is taken from a predefined maintenance measure code library. For example, the code for replacing the sealing ring is MC-033. The fault recurrence time sequence chain is a chain structure that connects the same fault events of the same part of the same equipment in chronological order. Each node carries the maintenance measure code field corresponding to the fault event. The preset round is a pre-configured integer parameter used to limit the range of nodes traced backward from the end of the time sequence chain. For example, when configured to 3, it means that only the 3 nodes that are most recent in time in the time sequence chain are compared. The upgraded approval node is a specific process node in the work order approval process where the superior manager performs the review and acceptance. After the work order is transferred to this node, it needs to be confirmed by the approver with higher authority.

[0077] After the fault recurrence timeline retrieval is triggered in S105, this process performs a maintenance measure code duplication check on the submission operation of the current hidden danger work order to prevent inefficient and repetitive rectification measures from being submitted again, and guides work orders with innovative solutions to a higher-level approval and confirmation process. Specifically, in the work order management system, an interceptor program is registered at the event response logic entry point of the submit button. When maintenance personnel submit the current hidden danger work order, the interceptor program executes first before the work order status changes and transfer instructions are issued, suspending the work order transfer operation. The interceptor program reads the maintenance measure code field value from the current hidden danger work order record to obtain the current maintenance measure code. Simultaneously, using the equipment identification code and target part code as search keys, it retrieves the corresponding timeline from the fault recurrence timeline database, sorts the nodes by node timestamp from largest to smallest, and extracts the nodes from the previous preset rounds. For example, when the preset rounds are configured as 3, the 3 most recent nodes are taken to form a comparison node set. The maintenance measure code field value carried by each node in this set is extracted to form a historical maintenance measure code list. The interception program performs a string-based exact match comparison between each current maintenance measure code and the values ​​in the historical maintenance measure code list. It iterates through all code values ​​in the list, determining if any item is identical to the current maintenance measure code. If any historical maintenance measure code is found to be completely identical to the current one, the comparison result is considered a duplicate. The interception program returns a rejection command to the work order interface, the work order submission is not executed, the work order status remains at the entry node, and a rejection message is returned to the current operator. The message includes the fault time and rectification result corresponding to the historical node with the duplicate code, informing the operator that the proposed measures have already been used in recent rectifications and failed to prevent recurrence of the fault, and requesting the operator to select a different maintenance measure code and resubmit. When no item matching the current maintenance measure code is found after traversing the entire historical maintenance measure code list, the comparison result is no duplicate. The interception program releases the work order flow suspension state, and overwrites the default next node in the normal flow path with the next flow target node of the current hidden danger work order as the higher-level approval node identifier. This triggers the work order flow instruction, pushing the work order to the higher-level approval node, where the superior management personnel will review and confirm the handling plan of adopting the new maintenance measure to ensure that the effectiveness of the plan is verified at a higher level.

[0078] The following provides a more detailed description of the process of the method provided in this implementation. Please refer to [link / reference]. Figure 2 This is another flowchart illustrating the dual control method of risk classification and control and hidden danger investigation and management in the embodiments of this application.

[0079] S201. Obtain the newly reported current hidden danger work order, extract the target equipment identification code and target part code corresponding to the current hidden danger work order, and retrieve the corresponding fault recurrence time sequence chain using the target equipment identification code and target part code.

[0080] The current hazard work order refers to a newly submitted hazard record document submitted through the hazard reporting channel that has not yet been resolved. It includes data fields such as reporting time, equipment information, and hazard description. The target equipment identification code is a unique number assigned to each piece of equipment, used to accurately locate the specific equipment in the database. For example, the equipment identification code for a transformer is "TR-2024-001". The target location code is a numbered identifier for a specific part or functional module on the equipment. For example, the location code for the transformer cooling system is "COOL-01". The fault recurrence sequence chain is an ordered data structure that uses the equipment identification code and location code as index keys, storing the survival time of each rectification of that part of the equipment in chronological order, reflecting the recurring pattern of faults in the same location.

[0081] After obtaining a newly reported current hazard work order, the equipment field value and location field value are read from the work order data structure to obtain the target equipment identification code and target location code, respectively. Using the combined value of these two fields as a composite search key, an exact match query is performed in the fault recurrence time-series database. If the query returns a corresponding time-series record, it indicates that the equipment has a historical fault recurrence record in that location, and subsequent processes perform a recurrence trend assessment based on this time-series chain; if no corresponding record is found, the process proceeds to the similar equipment group retrieval process described in S202.

[0082] S202. When no fault recurrence time sequence chain corresponding to the target equipment identification code and the target part code is found, the target equipment type code is extracted from the equipment ledger based on the target equipment identification code, and the existing fault recurrence time sequence chains in the same type of equipment group are retrieved using the target equipment type code and the target part code.

[0083] The equipment ledger is a database table that stores basic information about all equipment in use. Fields include equipment identification code, equipment name, equipment type code, and installation location, serving as the primary data source for equipment attribute queries. The target equipment type code is a coded field that identifies the model or category of the equipment. For example, equipment with the model "GIS-110kV-A" corresponds to the type code "GIS-110A". A group of similar equipment refers to the collection of all individual equipment with the same target equipment type code in the equipment ledger. For example, all equipment in a substation coded "GIS-110A" constitutes a group of similar equipment. These devices share consistency in structure, technology, and usage scenarios, and their failure patterns have cross-reference value.

[0084] When S201 fails to find a fault recurrence time-series chain corresponding to the target equipment identification code and the target location code, a single record query is performed in the equipment ledger using the target equipment identification code as the search key. The target equipment type code field value is then read from the returned record. Next, using the target equipment type code as the filter condition, a list of all equipment identification codes with that type code is queried in the equipment ledger, forming a group of similar equipment. Using the combination of the equipment identification code and the target location code of each piece of equipment in the similar equipment group as the composite search key, the fault recurrence time-series chain database is traversed to collect all existing fault recurrence time-series chain records in the similar equipment group, which serve as the data input for the group attenuation analysis in S203.

[0085] S203. Calculate the single decay amount of each fault recurrence timing chain in the same equipment group within the preset window period, and count the proportion of the number of fault recurrence timing chains whose single decay amount exceeds the preset decay threshold to the total number of all fault recurrence timing chains in the same equipment group as the group decay trigger rate.

[0086] The preset window period is a pre-configured range parameter used to extract recent data segments from the fault recurrence time-series chain. It is set in units of time span (e.g., the last 6 months) or number of rectification rounds (e.g., the last 5 rectifications). The single-item attenuation amount is the quotient obtained by dividing the overall change in rectification survival time within the preset window period by the number of rectifications. The calculation formula is R=(T_first-T_last) / N, where T_first is the earliest rectification survival time within the window period, T_last is the most recent rectification survival time, and N is the number of rectifications within the window period. A larger R value indicates a greater reduction in rectification survival time and a more significant acceleration of fault recurrence. The preset attenuation threshold is a critical value used to determine whether a single fault recurrence time-series chain exhibits a significant attenuation trend. It is pre-configured by operation and maintenance personnel based on the characteristics of the equipment type. The group attenuation trigger rate is the ratio of the number of fault recurrence time-series chains with a single attenuation amount exceeding the preset attenuation threshold to the total number of all fault recurrence time-series chains in the same equipment group, reflecting the prevalence of the accelerated fault recurrence trend at the group level.

[0087] For each fault recurrence time-series chain in the similar equipment group retrieved in S202, the following calculation process is executed sequentially: The data segment corresponding to the time-series chain is extracted using a preset window period parameter to obtain a subsequence of rectification survival time; the record value with the earliest time sequence in the subsequence is taken as T_first, and the record value with the latest time sequence is taken as T_last. The total number of records contained in the subsequence is counted as N, and substituted into the formula R=(T_first-T_last) / N to calculate the single decay amount R of the time-series chain. After performing the above calculation for each fault recurrence time-series chain in the similar equipment group, the number of time-series chains whose R value exceeds the preset decay threshold is recorded as M, and the total number of fault recurrence time-series chains in the group is recorded as P. The final result is calculated using the formula group decay trigger rate = M / P×100%. For example, if there are 10 fault recurrence time-series chains in the similar equipment group, and the single decay amount of 6 of them exceeds the preset decay threshold, then the group decay trigger rate is 60%, which is used for branch judgment in S204.

[0088] S204. When the group attenuation trigger rate exceeds the preset group threshold, the current hidden danger work order is marked as a group risk-related work order, the normal flow path of the current hidden danger work order is intercepted, and the current hidden danger work order is transferred to the escalation approval node.

[0089] A group risk-related work order is a status marker applied to a current hazard work order, indicating that the equipment failure involved in the work order has shown a systemic attenuation risk at the group level of similar equipment, and is not an isolated individual failure event, requiring the triggering of a higher-level handling mechanism. The regular workflow path is the path of a hazard work order proceeding according to preset nodes in the standard processing flow, typically passing through nodes such as acceptance confirmation, task assignment, on-site rectification, and rectification acceptance, applicable to the handling of routine hazards. The escalated approval node is an approval stage set up outside the regular workflow path, responsible for review by a management level with higher decision-making authority or a special review group, making specific handling decisions for group risk hazards.

[0090] When the group attenuation trigger rate calculated by S203 exceeds the preset group threshold, two write operations are performed on the current hidden danger work order: First, write the "group risk association" flag value into the work order status field of the current hidden danger work order, so that the work order has a group risk identifier that can be searched by conditions in the work order management database; Second, send an interception command to the work order flow control module to block the subsequent node advancement of the work order on the normal flow path, prevent it from automatically completing the dispatch or entering the standard rectification process as a normal hidden danger work order, and instead change the flow target node of the work order to the escalation approval node, so that the management personnel with the corresponding approval authority can review the work order and decide whether to issue batch investigation or special rectification instructions for similar equipment groups based on the group risk assessment conclusion.

[0091] S205. In response to any device in the same set of devices completing a special prevention and investigation task, receive the investigation result identifier returned by the device that has completed the special prevention and investigation task.

[0092] The "homogeneous equipment set" refers to the set of equipment that belongs to the same equipment type as the target equipment in the current hazard work order and has a fault recurrence sequence chain at the target location. Specifically, it's a subset of equipment with historical fault recurrence records within the same equipment group constituted by S202. These devices are included in the special prevention and investigation scope due to their history of fault recurrence in similar locations. The special prevention and investigation task is a targeted inspection task issued to each device in the homogeneous equipment set at the target location. Unlike routine inspections, this task focuses on identified risk areas and includes specified completion deadlines and investigation content requirements. The investigation result identifier is the result code returned by the equipment after completing the special prevention and investigation task. Its value is a predefined enumeration set, such as "normal," "hazard exists," or "rectification completed," used to record the qualitative conclusion of this investigation for subsequent risk assessment and work order status updates.

[0093] After receiving a specific prevention and inspection task, each device in the same equipment set performs an inspection on the target area by on-site personnel or automatic detection devices. When a device in the set completes its inspection, its terminal device or on-site operator submits the inspection result data to the data receiving module through the data reporting interface. The data receiving module parses the result code field in the reported data and writes the inspection result identifier, along with the corresponding device identification code, location code, and task number, into the inspection task record table, forming a traceable completion record. This receiving logic is triggered by the completion of an inspection by a single device; that is, the receiving process is executed as soon as any device in the same equipment set completes its inspection and sends back data, without waiting for all devices in the set to complete the inspection before batch processing. This enables real-time, one-by-one reception and recording of the inspection results of each device.

[0094] S206. The ratio of the number of devices that have completed the special prevention and investigation task in the same source device set and have returned fault reproduction marks to the total number of devices that have completed the special prevention and investigation task is used as the actual reproduction rate.

[0095] The "Fault Reproduced" flag is a specific value in the enumerated set of investigation result flags, indicating that a fault of the same type as a historical fault was confirmed to have recurred at the target location during this special prevention and investigation. This distinguishes it from other values ​​such as "normal" or "potential hazards exist but have not recurred." Equipment that has completed the special prevention and investigation task refers to individual equipment with valid investigation result feedback records in the investigation task record table, regardless of the value of the feedback investigation result flag. The actual reproduction rate is the ratio of the number of equipment that has returned the "Fault Reproduced" flag to the total number of equipment that has completed the investigation. For example, if a group of 20 equipment from the same source has completed the investigation and returned results for 12, and 5 of those 12 returned the "Fault Reproduced" flag, then the actual reproduction rate is approximately 5 / 12 ≈ 41.7%.

[0096] In the investigation task record table, using the current special prevention and investigation task number as the filter condition, the list of device identification codes with existing feedback records is queried to obtain the set of devices that have completed the special prevention and investigation task. The total number of records in this set is taken as the total number of completed devices, Q. Within the set of completed devices, a second filtering is performed using the investigation result identifier field value equal to "fault has been reproduced" as the filter condition. The number of records meeting this condition is taken as the number of reproduced devices, K. The actual reproduction rate F = K / Q is calculated by dividing K by Q. The calculation result is written to the status record field of the current special prevention and investigation task for use in the branch judgment of S207. The above statistics are re-executed each time a new investigation result feedback is received to ensure that the actual reproduction rate is continuously updated as the feedback data increases.

[0097] S207. When the actual reproduction rate exceeds the preset reproduction threshold, obtain the cumulative runtime of each device in the same source device set that has returned the fault reproduction mark, and calculate the average of the cumulative runtime of each device that has returned the fault reproduction mark as the average reproduction runtime.

[0098] The preset recurrence threshold is a pre-configured percentage threshold used to determine whether the scale of fault recurrence in similar equipment reaches a systemic risk level. For example, a configuration of 30% means that subsequent handling procedures will be triggered when more than 30% of the equipment that has completed investigation shows fault recurrence. Cumulative runtime is the cumulative continuous operating time of the equipment from its commissioning to the present moment, stored in the equipment operation log in hours, reflecting the historical load accumulation of the equipment. For example, if a piece of equipment has been running continuously for 8760 hours since its installation and commissioning, its cumulative runtime record value is 8760h. The average recurrence runtime is the arithmetic mean of the cumulative runtimes of all equipment that have reported fault recurrence. It is used to characterize the typical runtime level when a fault recurs among similar equipment, providing a reference benchmark for subsequent risk ranking of equipment that has not yet completed investigation.

[0099] When the actual recurrence rate F calculated in S206 exceeds the preset recurrence threshold, a list of all equipment identification codes that have returned the fault recurrence flag is extracted from the investigation task record table, using the current special prevention and investigation task number and the investigation result identifier value equal to "fault has been reproduced" as a composite query condition. Using the identification code of each device in this list as the search key, the corresponding cumulative runtime field value is queried one by one in the equipment operation ledger, resulting in a set of cumulative runtime values ​​of length K, denoted as {H1, H2, ..., Hk}. An arithmetic mean is calculated for this set, with the recurrence runtime mean H_avg = (H1 + H2 + ... + Hk) / K. H_avg is written into the analysis result record of the current investigation task for use in calculating the operating deviation value of each remaining device in S208.

[0100] S208. Filter the remaining devices from the priority queue, extract the cumulative runtime of each remaining device, and calculate the absolute value of the difference between the cumulative runtime of each remaining device and the average runtime of the reproduced device as the runtime deviation value.

[0101] The priority queue is an ordered data structure that arranges devices in the same set of devices that have not yet completed a special prevention and investigation task according to a predetermined priority level. Each record in the queue contains fields such as device identification code, current priority level, and investigation deadline, which are used to guide the execution order of investigation tasks. Remaining devices are individual devices in the priority queue that have not yet returned any investigation results as of the current time; that is, devices for which there are no valid completion records in the investigation task record table. The investigation work on the target parts of these devices is still pending. The operating deviation value is the absolute value of the difference between the cumulative runtime of a single remaining device and the average runtime of the reproduced fault. For example, if the cumulative runtime of a remaining device is 9500 hours and the average runtime of the reproduced fault is 8760 hours, then the operating deviation value of this device is |9500-8760|=740 hours. This value reflects how close the current runtime of the device is to the typical runtime of the reproduced fault; the smaller the deviation value, the closer the operating state of the device is to the typical duration of the fault reproduction.

[0102] In the priority queue, all remaining devices are filtered out using "incomplete" as the condition, resulting in a list of remaining devices. For each remaining device in the list, its cumulative runtime field value is retrieved from the device operation log using the device identification code as the search key. This cumulative runtime is denoted as Hi. Using the average reproducible runtime H_avg calculated in S207 as a benchmark, the runtime deviation value corresponding to each remaining device is calculated according to the formula Di = |Hi - H_avg|. After calculation, the runtime deviation value of each remaining device is written into the deviation value field of the corresponding record in the priority queue, forming an update queue containing runtime deviation values, which can be directly called by the sorting operation in S209.

[0103] S209. Reorder the remaining equipment according to the order of the operating deviation values ​​from smallest to largest, and uniformly raise the inspection priority of the reordered remaining equipment to the emergency level.

[0104] The urgency level is the highest priority level set in the investigation priority level system. It has the highest priority value in the investigation priority level enumeration set, and devices at this level have the first-mover advantage in investigation resource allocation and task scheduling. This is distinct from other levels such as regular level and higher level, which are lower than urgency. Reordering is an operation that adjusts the positional relationship of the remaining device records within the investigation priority queue according to a new sorting criterion. The sorting criterion changes from the original priority level field to the operational deviation value field, and the sorting direction is ascending. That is, the device with the smallest operational deviation value is placed at the front of the queue and receives investigation resources first.

[0105] Using the running deviation value field written to the investigation priority queue by S208 as the sorting key, all remaining device records in the queue are sorted in ascending order, with records with the same running deviation value maintaining their original relative order. After sorting, a batch write operation is performed on the priority level field of all remaining device records in the investigation priority queue, uniformly overwriting the current priority level field value of each record with the enumeration value corresponding to the "urgent" level, regardless of the original priority level value of each device before reordering. After the above two steps, all remaining devices in the investigation priority queue have been adjusted to the urgent level, and the queue is rearranged from high to low according to their proximity to the average reproduction runtime. The device with the runtime closest to the typical reproduction value is placed at the front of the queue, and execution instructions are given priority to it during investigation task scheduling.

[0106] S210. The execution period for the special prevention and investigation tasks corresponding to the remaining equipment is shortened to the preset compression ratio of the original execution period.

[0107] The execution period is the completion deadline field value written into the task record when the special prevention and investigation task is created. It is determined from the time the task is issued to the specified completion deadline, reflecting the timeliness requirements for completing the investigation task. For example, the execution period for a certain special task is to be completed within 7 days from the date of issuance. The preset compression ratio is a ratio parameter pre-written into the configuration item to shorten the execution period when an emergency response is triggered. The value ranges from 0 to 1. For example, a preset compression ratio of 0.5 means that the original execution period will be compressed to 50% of its original value. The original execution period is the initial execution period field value written when the special prevention and investigation task is created. It is used as a baseline value in the calculation of the execution period shortening and is independent of the task status, and does not change with the period adjustment in the intermediate process.

[0108] For the remaining equipment list sorted by S209, the task record corresponding to each remaining device is located in the task record table using the current special prevention and investigation task number and the identification code of each remaining device as search criteria. The original execution period field value initially written at creation is read from each task record. Let the task issuance time be T_start and the original execution deadline be T_end. Then the original execution period is L = T_end - T_start. The original execution period is L = L × P_ratio, multiplied by the preset compression ratio P_ratio, to obtain the compressed execution period L_new = L × P_ratio. The new execution deadline T_new is calculated by adding L_new to the task issuance time T_start, which is T_new = T_start + L_new. T_new is then written into the execution deadline field of the corresponding task record, completing the update of the execution period. For example, if the original execution period for a special prevention and investigation task was 7 days and the preset compression ratio was 0.5, then the new execution deadline would be the 3.5th day after the task was issued. The execution deadline field in the task record would be updated to the corresponding specific time value, and a deadline change notice would be issued to the corresponding investigation personnel.

[0109] In some embodiments, the dual-control system can further integrate intelligent data collection and predictive analysis capabilities to expand the sources of hazard information and the ability to predict risks.

[0110] In terms of intelligent inspection, the system can interface with intelligent inspection equipment such as drones and inspection robots, so that intelligent inspection equipment can replace traditional manual inspection to perform full-coverage inspection of key areas of the station. After the system analyzes the images, videos and other data collected during the inspection, the identified equipment abnormal information is automatically generated into a hidden danger work order and entered into the system. As one of the data sources of historical closed-loop work orders in the above step S101, it is incorporated into the construction and analysis process of the fault recurrence time sequence chain.

[0111] In terms of intelligent monitoring, the system can connect to data sensors deployed on core equipment to collect key operating parameters such as temperature, pressure, and flow rate in real time, and then visualize the data through the system. When the parameter values ​​collected by the sensors show abnormal fluctuations, the system automatically triggers an early warning and generates a corresponding hazard work order. This work order is also incorporated into the data system of the aforementioned problem rectification closed-loop process and fault recurrence sequence chain.

[0112] In terms of intelligent forecasting and early warning, the system can integrate external data sources such as meteorological data and automatically analyze equipment operation risks through AI models to achieve early risk prediction and tiered early warning. The prediction results can serve as one of the triggering bases for pushing risk supervision and inspection tasks. When high-risk periods or high-risk areas are predicted, the system proactively pushes special inspection tasks to relevant responsible personnel, providing decision support for proactive prevention and control.

[0113] Furthermore, the dual-control system can be integrated into smart mobile terminals to construct a multi-level remote monitoring system, enabling real-time and remote monitoring of the safety risks at widely distributed sites. It is particularly suitable for remote, penetrating monitoring of unmanned sites, breaking spatial limitations and improving monitoring efficiency and coverage. The data and work orders generated by the aforementioned intelligent inspections, smart monitoring, and intelligent predictive early warning systems are integrated with core mechanisms in the preceding steps, such as fault recurrence time-series analysis, single-time attenuation calculation, maintenance measure comparison, and batch inspection of equipment from the same source, further strengthening the linkage effectiveness between risk classification control and hidden danger investigation and management.

[0114] The dual-control system for governance in the embodiments of this invention is described below from the perspective of hardware processing. Please refer to [link / reference needed]. Figure 3 This is a schematic diagram of the physical device structure of a dual-control system for governance in an embodiment of this application.

[0115] It should be noted that, Figure 3 The structure of the dual-control system shown is merely an example and should not impose any limitations on the functionality and scope of use of the embodiments of the present invention.

[0116] like Figure 3 As shown, the dual-control system includes a Central Processing Unit (CPU) 301, which can perform various appropriate actions and processes based on programs stored in Read-Only Memory (ROM) 302 or programs loaded from storage section 308 into Random Access Memory (RAM) 303, such as executing the methods described in the above embodiments. The RAM 303 also stores various programs and data required for system operation. The CPU 301, ROM 302, and RAM 303 are interconnected via a bus 304. An Input / Output (I / O) interface 305 is also connected to the bus 304.

[0117] The following components are connected to I / O interface 305: input section 306 including audio input devices, push-button switches, etc.; output section 307 including liquid crystal display (LCD) and audio output devices, indicator lights, etc.; storage section 308 including hard disks, etc.; and communication section 309 including network interface cards such as LAN (Local Area Network) cards, modems, etc. Communication section 309 performs communication processing via a network such as the Internet. Drive 310 is also connected to I / O interface 305 as needed. Removable media 311, such as disks, optical disks, magneto-optical disks, semiconductor memories, etc., are installed on drive 310 as needed so that computer programs read from them can be installed into storage section 308 as needed.

[0118] In particular, according to embodiments of the present invention, the processes described above with reference to the flowcharts can be implemented as computer software programs. For example, embodiments of the present invention include a computer program product comprising a computer program carried on a computer-readable medium, the computer program containing computer programs for performing the methods shown in the flowcharts. In such embodiments, the computer program can be downloaded and installed from a network via communication section 309, and / or installed from removable medium 311. When the computer program is executed by central processing unit (CPU) 301, it performs the various functions defined in the present invention.

[0119] It should be noted that specific examples of computer-readable storage media may include, but are not limited to: electrical connections having one or more wires, portable computer disks, hard disks, random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), flash memory, optical fiber, portable compact disk read-only memory (CD-ROM), optical storage devices, magnetic storage devices, or any suitable combination thereof. In this invention, a computer-readable storage medium can be any tangible medium containing or storing a program that can be used by or in conjunction with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.

[0120] The flowcharts and block diagrams in the accompanying drawings illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods, and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention. Each block in a flowchart or block diagram may represent a module, program segment, or portion of code, which contains one or more executable instructions for implementing a specified logical function. It should also be noted that in some alternative implementations, the functions indicated in the blocks may occur in a different order than those shown in the drawings.

[0121] Specifically, the dual-control system for governance in this embodiment includes a processor and a memory. The memory stores a computer program. When the computer program is executed by the processor, it implements the dual-control method for risk classification and control and hidden danger investigation and governance provided in the above embodiment.

[0122] In another aspect, the present invention also provides a computer-readable storage medium, which may be included in the dual-control system for governance described in the above embodiments; or it may exist independently and not be assembled into the dual-control system for governance. The storage medium carries one or more computer programs, which, when executed by a processor of the dual-control system for governance, enable the dual-control system for governance to implement the risk classification and control and hidden danger investigation dual-control method provided in the above embodiments.

[0123] The above-described embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of this application, and are not intended to limit it. Although this application has been described in detail with reference to the foregoing embodiments, those skilled in the art should understand that modifications can still be made to the technical solutions described in the foregoing embodiments, or equivalent substitutions can be made to some of the technical features. Such modifications or substitutions do not cause the essence of the corresponding technical solutions to deviate from the scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of this application.

[0124] As used in the above embodiments, depending on the context, the term "when..." can be interpreted as meaning "if...", "after...", "in response to determining...", or "in response to detecting...". Similarly, depending on the context, the phrase "when determining..." or "if (the stated condition or event) is interpreted as meaning "if determining...", "in response to determining...", "when (the stated condition or event) is detected", or "in response to detecting (the stated condition or event)".

[0125] Those skilled in the art will understand that all or part of the processes in the methods of the above embodiments can be implemented by a computer program instructing related hardware. This program can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium, and when executed, it can include the processes described in the above method embodiments. The aforementioned storage medium includes various media capable of storing program code, such as ROM or random access memory (RAM), magnetic disks, or optical disks.

Claims

1. A dual-control method for risk classification and management and hidden danger investigation and treatment, characterized in that, The method, applied to a dual-control system for governance, includes: Extract work order record information from archived historical closed-loop work orders, and group the work order record information according to the same equipment identification code and fault location code; Within each group, work orders are arranged in chronological order. The time interval between the closing of the previous work order and the reporting of the subsequent work order between two adjacent work orders is calculated as the rectification survival time. The rectification survival times within each group are arranged in chronological order to construct a fault recurrence time sequence chain. Obtain newly reported current hazard work orders, extract the target equipment identification code and target location code corresponding to the current hazard work order, and retrieve the corresponding fault recurrence time sequence chain using the target equipment identification code and the target location code; When the fault recurrence time sequence is retrieved, the survival time of each rectification within the most recent preset window period in the fault recurrence time sequence is obtained, the difference between the earliest rectification survival time and the most recent rectification survival time within the preset window period is calculated, and the ratio of the difference to the number of rectifications within the preset window period is used as the single decay amount. When the single attenuation amount exceeds the preset attenuation threshold, the normal flow path of the current hidden danger work order is intercepted and the current hidden danger work order is transferred to the escalation approval node.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, After the step of arranging the rectification survival times within each group in chronological order to construct a fault recurrence time sequence chain, the method further includes: Extract the maintenance measure code corresponding to each work order; The maintenance measures are coded and associated with the corresponding nodes in the fault recurrence time sequence chain.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The steps of intercepting the normal workflow of the current hidden danger work order and transferring the current hidden danger work order to the escalation approval node specifically include: Intercept the normal flow path of the current hidden danger work order, obtain the current maintenance measure code entered for the current hidden danger work order, and compare the current maintenance measure code with the maintenance measure codes associated with each node in the most recent preset round in the fault recurrence sequence chain; When the current maintenance measure code is the same as any of the maintenance measure codes in the most recent preset round, the submission and processing of the current hidden danger work order is rejected; When the current maintenance measure code is different from all the maintenance measure codes in the most recent preset round, the current hidden danger work order will be transferred to the escalation approval node.

4. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that, After the step of intercepting the normal workflow of the current hidden danger work order and transferring the current hidden danger work order to the escalation approval node when the single attenuation amount exceeds the preset attenuation threshold, the method further includes: In response to the completion of acceptance at the upgraded approval node of the current hidden danger work order, the current maintenance measure is coded and marked as a valid maintenance measure, the same source batch identifier associated with the target equipment identification code is extracted, and the same source equipment set is screened out in the equipment ledger according to the same source batch identifier; Query whether each device in the same source device set has the fault recurrence time sequence chain under the target part code. Sort the devices with the fault recurrence time sequence chain in descending order according to the single attenuation amount corresponding to each device. Sort the devices without the fault recurrence time sequence chain in descending order according to the cumulative running time of each device and arrange them after the devices with the fault recurrence time sequence chain. Merge them to form a priority queue for investigation. Specialized prevention and investigation tasks are generated sequentially for the devices in the same set of devices according to the order of the investigation priority queue. The specialized prevention and investigation tasks include the effective maintenance measures and the target part codes.

5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, After the step of retrieving the corresponding fault recurrence time sequence chain using the target device identification code and the target location code, the method further includes: When the fault recurrence time sequence chain corresponding to the target device identification code and the target part code is not found, the target device type code is extracted from the device ledger according to the target device identification code, and the fault recurrence time sequence chain that already exists in the same type of device group is retrieved using the target device type code and the target part code. Calculate the single attenuation amount of each fault recurrence time-series chain in the same group of equipment within the preset window period, and count the proportion of the number of fault recurrence time-series chains whose single attenuation amount exceeds the preset attenuation threshold to the total number of all fault recurrence time-series chains in the same group of equipment as the group attenuation trigger rate. When the group attenuation trigger rate exceeds the preset group threshold, the current hidden danger work order is marked as a group risk-related work order, the normal flow path of the current hidden danger work order is intercepted, and the current hidden danger work order is transferred to the upgraded approval node.

6. The method according to claim 4, characterized in that, After the step of generating specific prevention and investigation tasks for devices in the same source device set in the order of the investigation priority queue, the method further includes: In response to any device in the same set of devices completing the special prevention and investigation task, the system receives the investigation result identifier returned by the device that completed the special prevention and investigation task. The investigation result identifier includes a fault reproduction identifier or a fault non-reproduction identifier. The ratio of the number of devices that have completed the special prevention and investigation task in the same set of devices that have returned the fault reproduction mark to the total number of devices that have completed the special prevention and investigation task is used as the actual reproduction rate. When the actual recurrence rate exceeds the preset recurrence threshold, the priority level of the remaining devices in the investigation priority queue that have not yet executed the special prevention and investigation task will be upgraded to the emergency level, and the execution period of the special prevention and investigation task corresponding to the remaining devices will be shortened to a preset compression ratio of the original execution period.

7. The method according to claim 6, characterized in that, The step of raising the priority level of the remaining devices in the priority queue that have not yet performed the special prevention and investigation task to the emergency level specifically includes: Obtain the cumulative runtime of each device in the same source device set that has returned the fault reproduction identifier, and calculate the average of the cumulative runtime of each device that has returned the fault reproduction identifier as the average reproduction runtime. The remaining devices are selected from the priority queue for screening, the cumulative runtime of each remaining device is extracted, and the absolute value of the difference between the cumulative runtime of each remaining device and the average runtime of the reproduced device is calculated as the runtime deviation value. The remaining equipment is reordered according to the operational deviation value in ascending order, and the priority level of the remaining equipment after reordering is uniformly raised to the emergency level.

8. A dual-control governance system, characterized in that, The dual-control governance system includes: one or more processors and a memory; the memory is coupled to the one or more processors, the memory is used to store computer program code, the computer program code includes computer instructions, and the one or more processors call the computer instructions to cause the dual-control governance system to perform the method as described in any one of claims 1-7.

9. A computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, characterized in that, When the instruction is executed on the dual-control system, it causes the dual-control system to perform the method as described in any one of claims 1-7.

10. A computer program product, characterized in that, When the computer program product is run on the dual-control system, it causes the dual-control system to perform the method as described in any one of claims 1-7.

Images