A method for forming a lock of a result of a power meter calibration system

Abstract

This invention relates to the field of automatic verification technology for electricity meters, and particularly to a method for locking verification results in an electricity meter verification system. The method includes: acquiring basic information and execution configuration information of the verification task to form an initial locking benchmark; constructing a single-moment consistency criterion based on this benchmark and obtaining a consistency quantity for the entire task benchmark; collecting the flow information of the vehicle at each workstation, constructing a path consistency criterion, and generating a path consistency quantity; acquiring error data, constructing an error data consistency criterion, and obtaining an error consistency quantity; acquiring equipment status information and constructing an equipment consistency quantity; calculating the verification evidence closure constraint quantity based on the above four quantities, and judging the consistency of the verification process; locking the verification conclusion when there is inconsistency. This method solves the problems of electricity meter verification systems, such as the impact of configuration changes on verification reliability, lack of workstation flow verification, risk of data mismatch or mixing, and erroneous output of abnormal verification results.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of automatic verification technology for electricity meters, and in particular to a method for forming a verification result lockout in an electricity meter verification system. Background Technology

[0002] With the continuous advancement of smart grid construction, electricity meters, as a crucial foundation for electricity metering and trade settlement, have their verification results directly impacting the operation and management of power companies, electricity bill settlement, and the legitimate rights and interests of users. To ensure that the metering performance of electricity meters meets relevant technical specifications during manufacturing, replacement, and operation, the power industry generally employs automated verification systems to conduct batch verification of electricity meters and determines their qualification based on the verification results.

[0003] Electricity meter calibration systems typically handle tasks such as task assignment, automatic calibration, data acquisition, error calculation, and calibration conclusion generation. However, during the result generation process, more attention is often paid to whether the calibration error meets the procedural requirements, while insufficient attention is paid to verifying the consistency of data throughout the entire calibration process. For example, during the calibration process, there may be instances of abnormal modification of task information, abnormal workstation flow paths, missing or tampered original error data, abnormal status of calibration equipment, and mismatches between calibration conclusions and original data. If these anomalies are not detected in a timely manner, the final calibration result may still be generated and saved, thus affecting the reliability and credibility of the calibration result.

[0004] Meanwhile, with the increasing networking and centralized data management of verification systems, verification data faces higher requirements for data security and result reliability during transmission, storage, and archiving. How to verify the consistency of key data throughout the entire verification process before the official output, upload, or archiving of verification conclusions, and how to establish a locked state that cannot be arbitrarily modified after verification, has become an important technical requirement for improving the quality control level of electricity meter verification.

[0005] Therefore, this study proposes a method for locking the verification results of an electricity meter verification system. Before the verification results are generated, the system performs a full-process consistency check on the task benchmark, work station path, original error data, equipment status, and verification conclusions. Based on the check results, the system implements locking control of the verification results. This method is of great significance for improving the authenticity, integrity, traceability, and tamper-proof capability of the verification results. Summary of the Invention

[0006] This invention provides a method for locking the verification results of an electricity meter verification system. This addresses several issues in electricity meter verification systems: first, the difficulty in ensuring consistency between procedures, scripts, and templates throughout the verification process, leading to reliability issues due to configuration changes; second, the lack of effective verification of workstation flow paths, resulting in station skipping or incorrect station errors affecting the authenticity of verification results; third, the difficulty in confirming whether error data corresponds one-to-one with the actual verification process, posing a risk of data mismatch or misuse; and fourth, the lack of comprehensive verification of equipment status and the validity of standards, which can easily lead to erroneous output of verification results under abnormal conditions.

[0007] The present invention provides a method for forming a lockout of the verification result of an electricity meter verification system, which specifically includes the following steps:

[0008] S1. Obtain basic information and execution configuration information of the verification task to form an initial locking benchmark and generate a unique process identifier; based on the initial locking benchmark, construct a single-moment consistency criterion and obtain the overall task benchmark consistency quantity; collect the flow information of the vehicle at each workstation, construct a path consistency criterion and generate a path consistency quantity; obtain error data, combine it with the unique process identifier, construct an error data consistency criterion and obtain an error consistency quantity; obtain equipment status information and construct an equipment consistency quantity.

[0009] S2. Based on the consistency of the whole process task benchmark, path consistency, error consistency and equipment consistency, construct the verification evidence closure constraint function and calculate the verification evidence closure constraint quantity; based on the verification evidence closure constraint quantity, judge the consistency of the verification process, lock the verification conclusion when there is inconsistency, and output the reason for locking.

[0010] Preferably, S1 specifically includes:

[0011] The basic information of the verification task includes the task number, meter number, set of verification items, and initial procedure version; the execution configuration information includes the initial script version and initial template summary; the basic information and execution configuration information of the verification task are locked at the start of the task to obtain the initial locking benchmark.

[0012] Preferably, S1 specifically includes:

[0013] A process identifier is introduced to generate a timestamp and a local incrementing sequence number. These are then combined with the task number and meter number to perform a combined encoding process, generating a unique process identifier.

[0014] Preferably, S1 specifically includes:

[0015] At each sampling time, the procedure version, script version, and template summary are read and compared with the initial procedure version, initial script version, and initial template summary in the initial locking benchmark, respectively, to construct a single-time consistency criterion and obtain the task benchmark consistency quantity. The task benchmark consistency quantities at all sampling times are aggregated to obtain the overall task benchmark consistency quantity.

[0016] Preferably, S1 specifically includes:

[0017] Based on the entry time, exit time, entrance label, and exit label of each workstation's flow information, a path consistency criterion is constructed to determine whether the workstation path segments meet the requirements of being on the same vehicle and having the correct time sequence. The path consistency criteria of all workstation path segments are aggregated to obtain the path consistency quantity.

[0018] Preferably, S1 specifically includes:

[0019] Based on the sampling time in the error data and the unique process identifier, task number, meter number, verification item number, and workstation number carried in the error data record, combined with the unique process identifier and the workstation number and workstation time window of the corresponding workstation path segment, an error data consistency criterion is constructed; the error data consistency criterion is aggregated to obtain the error consistency quantity.

[0020] Preferably, S1 specifically includes:

[0021] The equipment operating status, standard validity, and accuracy level information in the equipment status information are mapped to discrete variables to uniformly express the equipment status constraints and construct equipment consistency criteria. The equipment consistency criteria are then aggregated to obtain the equipment consistency quantity.

[0022] Preferably, S2 specifically includes:

[0023] In the process of constructing the verification evidence closure constraint function, the absolute difference between the path consistency quantity and the error consistency quantity is calculated, and the relative inconsistency degree is constructed. Based on the relative inconsistency degree, the whole process task benchmark consistency quantity, equipment consistency quantity, and the minimum credible constraint term jointly constructed by the path consistency quantity and the error consistency quantity are introduced to calculate the verification evidence closure constraint quantity.

[0024] Preferably, S2 specifically includes:

[0025] When the verification evidence closure constraint is equal to 1, it indicates that there is no abnormality in the verification process, and the verification conclusion can be generated and output; otherwise, it indicates that at least one link does not meet the consistency requirement, and the verification conclusion needs to be locked. Based on the consistency of the whole process task benchmark, path consistency, error consistency and equipment consistency, the link with the weakest consistency is located and the locking reason is generated.

[0026] The beneficial effects of the technical solution of the present invention are:

[0027] 1. By locking the initial procedure version, initial script version, and initial template summary when the verification task is started, and continuously performing consistency checks throughout the verification process, the entire process of the verification rule environment is constrained and tracked. This effectively avoids inconsistencies in the verification basis caused by procedure switching, script modification, or template change, thereby ensuring that the verification conclusions are always based on unified and stable metrological rules, and improving the standardization and credibility of the verification conclusions.

[0028] 2. By collecting the flow information of the carrier between each verification station and combining it with RFID tags and time sequence verification, a path consistency quantity is constructed, which realizes the continuous verification of the flow trajectory of the entire process of electricity meter verification. It can accurately detect problems such as skipped station verification, misaligned verification, and abnormal station execution, thereby ensuring that the verification process is completely consistent with the actual process flow and improving the traceability and process control capabilities of the verification process.

[0029] 3. By associating and binding multi-dimensional business fields and automatically filtering and mapping paths based on project, workstation, and serial number rules, the system achieves precise correlation and verification between error data and task execution paths and workstation time windows, constructs error consistency quantities, and verifies the legality of the data sources used in the verification calculation. This effectively prevents anomalies such as error data mismatch, data misuse, and the mixing of data from other verification processes, thereby ensuring that the verification conclusions are based on real, valid, and traceable original measurement data, and improving the authenticity and measurement validity of the verification results.

[0030] 4. The consistency of task benchmarks, paths, errors, and equipment is integrated to construct a closed-loop constraint mechanism for verification evidence. By coordinating the verification of rule constraints, execution trajectories, data sources, and equipment status, a complete closed-loop verification of the verification evidence chain is achieved. Verification conclusions are only allowed to be output when all types of evidence form a complete closed loop; otherwise, a locked state is automatically formed and the result archiving is blocked. This effectively prevents verification results with potential risks or missing evidence from entering the metering management process, significantly improving the reliability, security, and automation level of the locking of electricity meter verification results. Attached Figure Description

[0031] Figure 1This is a flowchart of a method for forming a lockout of the verification result of an electricity meter verification system according to the present invention. Detailed Implementation

[0032] To further illustrate the technical means and effects adopted by the present invention to achieve its intended purpose, the technical solutions of the present invention will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings of the embodiments. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of the present invention, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments of the present invention, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of the present invention.

[0033] Unless otherwise defined, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention pertains.

[0034] The following describes in detail, with reference to the accompanying drawings, a specific scheme for the method of forming a locking mechanism for the verification result of an electricity meter verification system provided by the present invention.

[0035] See attached document Figure 1 The diagram illustrates a method for forming a lockout of a verification result in an energy meter verification system according to an embodiment of the present invention. The method includes the following steps:

[0036] S1. Obtain basic information and execution configuration information of the verification task to form an initial locking benchmark and generate a unique process identifier; based on the initial locking benchmark, construct a single-moment consistency criterion and obtain the whole-process task benchmark consistency quantity; collect the flow information of the vehicle at each workstation, construct a path consistency criterion and generate a path consistency quantity; obtain error data, combine it with the unique process identifier, construct an error data consistency criterion and obtain an error consistency quantity; obtain equipment status information and construct equipment consistency quantity.

[0037] At the start of the verification task, the electricity meter verification system first obtains the basic information of the current verification task through the production scheduling platform interface, including the task number. Meter number Set of verification items and the initial procedure version Simultaneously, execution configuration information, including the initial script version, is obtained through the configuration file locking interface. and initial template summary The aforementioned task number, meter number, verification item set, initial procedure version, initial script version, and initial template summary are fixed and saved at the start of the verification task, forming the initial locking benchmark for the current verification process, which serves as the benchmark constraint for the entire verification process.

[0038] Subsequently, the verification data management server receives the task number and meter number to generate a unique process identifier. Specifically, the verification data management server receives the task number and meter number, and at the moment of generation, reads the current timestamp of the electricity meter verification system, i.e., the process identifier generation timestamp. It then reads the local incrementing sequence number of the verification data management server under the current timestamp, and concatenates the task number, meter number, process identifier generation timestamp, and local incrementing sequence number according to a preset field order to form the original process identifier string. The original process identifier string is then processed using the following encoding function for standard encoding to generate a unique process identifier: , in, Indicates a unique process identifier; This represents the encoding function, which converts the original process identifier string within the parentheses into a process identifier in a uniform format. The encoding function can use hexadecimal encoding, Base64 encoding, or hash digest encoding. The process identifier is generated by a timestamp, which originates from the system clock of the electricity meter calibration system. This indicates a locally incrementing sequence number, derived from an auto-incrementing counter maintained by the verification data management server under the same timestamp.

[0039] At each sampling time The electricity meter calibration system reads the regulation version in real time. Script version and template summary And compare it with the initial locking benchmark to construct the following single-time consistency criterion: , , ,

[0040] Based on the above three single-moment consistency criteria, the single-moment task baseline consistency quantity can be obtained: , in, Indicates the first The task baseline consistency quantity at each sampling time; Indicates the first The consistency criterion for the procedure version at each sampling time takes a value of 0 or 1. It is determined based on the comparison result between the current procedure version and the initial procedure version. When the value is 1, it indicates that the procedure versions are consistent, and when the value is 0, it indicates that the procedure versions are inconsistent. Indicates the first The script version consistency criterion at each sampling time can be either 0 or 1. It is determined based on the comparison between the current script version and the initial script version. A value of 1 indicates that the script versions are consistent, while a value of 0 indicates that the script versions are inconsistent. Indicates the first The template summary consistency criterion at each sampling time takes a value of 0 or 1. It is determined based on the comparison result between the current template summary and the initial template summary. A value of 1 indicates that the template summaries are consistent, and a value of 0 indicates that the template summaries are inconsistent.

[0041] To reflect the consistency of the benchmarks throughout the entire verification process, the benchmark consistency values ​​at all sampling times are aggregated to obtain the overall benchmark consistency value, expressed by the following formula: , in, This represents the consistency quantity of the task baseline throughout the entire process; This represents the total number of sampling times during the verification process;

[0042] The consistency of the task benchmark throughout the entire process can directly reflect whether the verification process is always executed under the same procedures, scripts and templates, and is an important basis for subsequent locking determination.

[0043] Regarding path consistency construction, the electricity meter calibration system continuously collects the flow information of the vehicle at each workstation through the PLC status interface and RFID identification system, including the workstation number. Entry Time Departure time Entry tags and export labels and indexed by path segment Indicates the first Workstation path; to determine whether each path segment is valid, the following path consistency criterion is defined: ,

[0044] The path consistency criteria for all workstation path segments are aggregated to obtain the path consistency quantity, expressed by the following formula: , in, This represents the path consistency quantity; Indicates the number of workstation path segments; Indicates the first The path consistency criterion for the workstation path takes a value of 0 or 1. Its function is to determine whether the path segment meets the requirements of the same vehicle and correct time sequence. When the value is 1, it indicates that the path is consistent, and when the value is 0, it indicates that the path is inconsistent.

[0045] The path consistency measure can reflect whether the physical flow of the vehicle during the verification process is continuous, whether there are any skips or misalignments, and ensure that the time sequence is correct.

[0046] Regarding the construction of consistent error data, the electricity meter calibration system obtains error data through the data interface of the calibration device, including the original error value of each measurement. Sampling time Sampling sequence number Error data records carry a corresponding unique process identifier. Task Number Meter number , Number of the relevant verification item and the workstation number ,in, Sourced from the error acquisition module of the calibration device; The system clock originates from the electricity meter calibration system; Sourced from the local sampling sequence number of the calibration device; , , and It originates from the business field bound to the verification data management server when error data is written; An index indicating the number of measurements involved in the calculation. , The set of measurement indexes participating in the calculation is automatically determined by the procedure calculation module of the electricity meter verification system based on the set of verification items for the verification task, the workstation configuration table of the verification system, and the valid sampling sequence number rules corresponding to the current procedure version. For any error measurement data, if the verification item number belongs to the current task's verification item set, the workstation number is consistent with the workstation configuration corresponding to the verification item, the local sampling sequence number belongs to the valid sampling sequence number set of the verification item, and the original error value is not empty, the index of the error measurement data is included in the error measurement index set participating in the procedure calculation. By judging the consistency of process identifiers, workstations, and time windows, the following error data consistency criteria are constructed: , in, This is the consistency criterion for error data, representing the first... Whether the error data involved in the procedure calculation is consistent with the current verification process and the corresponding workstation path segment, the value is 0 or 1, a value of 1 indicates consistency, and a value of 0 indicates inconsistency; Indicates the first Each error data involved in the procedure calculation carries a unique process identifier; Indicates the first The workstation path segment index corresponding to each original error value is determined by the corresponding verification item number. With the corresponding workstation number The corresponding relationship is determined in the workstation configuration table of the calibration system; Indicates the first The workstation number of the workstation path; Indicates the first Entry time of the workstation path; Indicates the first Departure time of the workstation path;

[0047] The consistency criteria for all error data are aggregated to obtain the error consistency quantity: , in, This represents the error consistency quantity, with a value range of [value range missing]. ; Represents the set of measurement indexes involved in the calculation. The number of elements in it.

[0048] Regarding the construction of equipment status consistency, the electricity meter calibration system obtains equipment status information through the PLC system and the standard management system, including equipment operating status, standard validity and accuracy level information, and maps them into discrete variables respectively. , , Each variable takes a value from the set. To uniformly express device state constraints, a device consistency criterion is defined: , in, Indicates the first Whether each piece of equipment participating in the verification meets all the conditions, the value is taken as follows: ; Indicates the first The operating status variables of the equipment participating in the verification are derived from the status bits of the PLC system, and the values ​​are 0 or 1, with 1 indicating that the equipment is operating normally; Indicates the first The validity variable of each equipment standard participating in the verification comes from the standard management system and takes a value of 0 or 1, where 1 indicates that the equipment standard is within its validity period. Indicates the first The accuracy level of each device participating in the verification meets the variable, which takes the value of 0 or 1. It is automatically determined by the electricity meter verification system based on the accuracy level information of the acquired devices and the accuracy requirements pre-built into the system. When the value is 1, it means that the accuracy level of the device meets the accuracy requirements. Furthermore, the equipment consistency criteria for all participating equipment are aggregated to obtain the equipment consistency quantity, expressed by the following formula: , in, Indicates the quantity of equipment consistency; This indicates the number of devices involved in the verification.

[0049] S2. Based on the consistency of the whole process task benchmark, path consistency, error consistency and equipment consistency, construct the verification evidence closure constraint function and calculate the verification evidence closure constraint quantity; based on the verification evidence closure constraint quantity, judge the consistency of the verification process, lock the verification conclusion when there is inconsistency, and output the reason for locking.

[0050] Based on the consistency of the whole process task benchmark, path consistency, error consistency and equipment consistency, a verification evidence closure constraint function is constructed and the verification evidence closure constraint quantity is calculated. When constructing the closure constraint function for verification evidence, the formula is not simply derived from empirical weighting, but from the four necessary closure conditions of the verification evidence chain for electricity meters. The prerequisites for outputting verification results are: first, the task baseline must remain consistent, meaning the procedure version, script version, and template summary must not change throughout the process; second, the vehicle path must be continuous and traceable, meaning the flow record of the tested electricity meter between each workstation can form a complete path; third, the error data involved in the procedure calculation must fall within the time window of the corresponding path segment, meaning the error data can be interpreted by the actual workstation path; and fourth, the equipment involved in the verification must be in a valid state and meet the accuracy requirements. The above four types of conditions are all necessary constraints before the verification results are valid. If any condition is not met, the verification results may not form an archiveable chain of evidence. Specifically, the path consistency quantity and the error consistency quantity are first combined. The path consistency quantity reflects whether the execution trajectory in physical space is continuous, while the error consistency quantity reflects whether the data involved in the calculation comes from the correct workstation time window. By calculating the product of the path consistency quantity and the error consistency quantity, the basic matching degree between the path and the data is obtained, indicating that the verification data has basic credibility only when the path is continuous and the data source is correct. Furthermore, the absolute difference between path consistency and error consistency is calculated to characterize whether there is a structural deviation between the path and the data, such as a correct path but an abnormal data source, or seemingly complete data but a broken path; based on path consistency... Consistency with Error absolute difference By combining a bounded stable term constructed from the basic matching degree between the path and the data, the relative inconsistency degree is calculated to eliminate the influence of different dimensions or value ranges, so that the relative inconsistency degree has a unified evaluation standard. Subsequently, by reversing the relative inconsistency degree, the degree of closure between the path and the data is obtained. The physical meaning of the degree of closure degree is that only when there is no significant deviation between the path and the data can a stable mapping relationship be formed between them. That is, each piece of data can be explained by a unique and continuous path segment, thus forming a traceable relationship. A global constraint, the consistency of the task benchmark throughout the entire process, is introduced. This consistency reflects whether the procedure version, script version, and template summary remain unchanged throughout the verification process. Essentially, it corresponds to the stability constraint of the calculation rules. If the consistency of the task benchmark throughout the entire process decreases, it indicates that there has been a rule switch or configuration change during the verification process. Even if the path and data match perfectly, the legality of the calculation results cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the consistency of the task benchmark throughout the entire process acts as a "rule constraint boundary" in the overall calculation. The equipment consistency quantity is also introduced as an execution layer constraint, reflecting whether all the equipment involved in the verification is in normal operation, whether the equipment standard is within the validity period, and whether the accuracy level of the equipment meets the requirements. The physical meaning is that even if the path and data are completely consistent, if the equipment status is unreliable, the collected data itself will not have metrological validity. Equipment consistency plays the role of "physical execution constraint" in the overall calculation. Finally, a minimum credibility constraint term is introduced between the path consistency quantity and the error consistency quantity. That is, at any time or in a statistical sense, the overall credibility cannot exceed the maximum credibility level that the weaker one can support. This reflects a short-board constraint principle, which is used to avoid the problem of the overall evaluation being inflated due to one of the two sources being overestimated or simultaneously distorted when there is a dual-source consistency evaluation. Therefore, the specific formula for calculating the closure constraint function of the test evidence is as follows: , in, Indicates the closure constraint of the test evidence. , Indicates complete closure. This indicates that there is an open circuit, and the test result must be closed. Indicates the basic degree of matching between the path and the data; Indicates relative inconsistency; Indicates the degree of closure between the path and the data; Indicates a bounded stable term; The smallest reliable constraint term representing the path consistency quantity and the error consistency quantity; During the judgment phase, a strict judgment logic is adopted: when the verification evidence closure constraint reaches a fully closed state, it indicates that there are no abnormalities in all key dimensions of the verification process, the data source is traceable, the path is continuous, the rules are stable, and the equipment is reliable. At this time, the verification conclusion can be generated and output. When the verification evidence closure constraint is lower than the fully closed state, it indicates that at least one link does not meet the consistency requirements, and the verification conclusion needs to be locked. At the same time, the electricity meter verification system will compare the consistency of the task benchmark, path consistency, error consistency, and equipment consistency throughout the process, and determine the verification link corresponding to the consistency value with the smallest value as the weakest consistency link. The locking reason is automatically generated based on the weakest consistency link. When multiple consistency values ​​reach the minimum value at the same time, multiple corresponding weakest consistency links are simultaneously determined as weak consistency links, and a combined locking reason is generated.

[0051] In summary, a method for forming the locking mechanism of the verification results of an electricity meter verification system has been completed.

[0052] The order of the embodiments is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent the superiority or inferiority of the embodiments. The processes depicted in the drawings do not necessarily require a specific or sequential order to achieve the desired result. In some embodiments, multitasking and parallel processing are possible or may be advantageous.

[0053] The various embodiments in this specification are described in a progressive manner. The same or similar parts between the various embodiments can be referred to each other. Each embodiment focuses on describing the differences from other embodiments.

[0054] The above embodiments are only used to illustrate the technical solutions of the present invention, and are not intended to limit it. Although the present invention 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 spirit and scope of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present invention, and should all be included within the protection scope of the present invention.

Claims

1. A method for forming a lockout of the verification result of an electricity meter verification system, characterized in that, Specifically, the following steps are included: S1. Obtain the basic information and execution configuration information of the verification task, form the initial locking benchmark, and generate a unique process identifier; Based on the initial locking benchmark, a single-moment consistency criterion is constructed, and the overall task benchmark consistency quantity is obtained; the flow information of the vehicle at each workstation is collected, a path consistency criterion is constructed, and a path consistency quantity is generated; error data is obtained, and combined with the unique process identifier, an error data consistency criterion is constructed, and an error consistency quantity is obtained; equipment status information is obtained, and equipment consistency quantity is constructed. S2. Based on the consistency of the whole process task benchmark, path consistency, error consistency and equipment consistency, construct the verification evidence closure constraint function and calculate the verification evidence closure constraint quantity; based on the verification evidence closure constraint quantity, judge the consistency of the verification process, lock the verification conclusion when there is inconsistency, and output the reason for locking.

2. The method for forming a locking mechanism for the verification result of an electricity meter verification system according to claim 1, characterized in that, S1 specifically includes: The basic information of the verification task includes the task number, meter number, set of verification items, and initial procedure version; the execution configuration information includes the initial script version and initial template summary; the basic information and execution configuration information of the verification task are locked at the start of the task to obtain the initial locking benchmark.

3. The method for forming a locking mechanism for the verification result of an electricity meter verification system according to claim 2, characterized in that, S1 specifically includes: A process identifier is introduced to generate a timestamp and a local incrementing sequence number. These are then combined with the task number and meter number to perform a combined encoding process, generating a unique process identifier.

4. The method for forming a locking mechanism for the verification result of an electricity meter verification system according to claim 2, characterized in that, S1 specifically includes: At each sampling time, the procedure version, script version, and template summary are read and compared with the initial procedure version, initial script version, and initial template summary in the initial locking benchmark, respectively, to construct a single-time consistency criterion and obtain the task benchmark consistency quantity. The task benchmark consistency quantities at all sampling times are aggregated to obtain the overall task benchmark consistency quantity.

5. The method for forming a locking mechanism for the verification result of an electricity meter verification system according to claim 4, characterized in that, S1 specifically includes: Based on the entry time, exit time, entrance label, and exit label of each workstation's flow information, a path consistency criterion is constructed to determine whether the workstation path segments meet the requirements of being on the same vehicle and having the correct time sequence. The path consistency criteria of all workstation path segments are aggregated to obtain the path consistency quantity.

6. The method for forming a locking mechanism for the verification result of an electricity meter verification system according to claim 5, characterized in that, S1 specifically includes: Based on the sampling time in the error data and the unique process identifier, task number, meter number, verification item number, and workstation number carried in the error data record, combined with the unique process identifier and the workstation number and workstation time window of the corresponding workstation path segment, an error data consistency criterion is constructed; the error data consistency criterion is aggregated to obtain the error consistency quantity.

7. The method for forming a locking mechanism for the verification result of an electricity meter verification system according to claim 1, characterized in that, S1 specifically includes: The equipment operating status, standard validity, and accuracy level information in the equipment status information are mapped to discrete variables to uniformly express the equipment status constraints and construct equipment consistency criteria. The equipment consistency criteria are then aggregated to obtain the equipment consistency quantity.

8. The method for forming a locking mechanism for the verification result of an electricity meter verification system according to claim 1, characterized in that, S2 specifically includes: In the process of constructing the verification evidence closure constraint function, the absolute difference between the path consistency quantity and the error consistency quantity is calculated, and the relative inconsistency degree is constructed. Based on the relative inconsistency degree, the whole process task benchmark consistency quantity, equipment consistency quantity, and the minimum credible constraint term jointly constructed by the path consistency quantity and the error consistency quantity are introduced to calculate the verification evidence closure constraint quantity.

9. The method for forming a locking mechanism for the verification result of an electricity meter verification system according to claim 8, characterized in that, S2 specifically includes: When the verification evidence closure constraint is equal to 1, it indicates that there is no abnormality in the verification process, and the verification conclusion can be generated and output; otherwise, it indicates that at least one link does not meet the consistency requirement, and the verification conclusion needs to be locked. Based on the consistency of the whole process task benchmark, path consistency, error consistency and equipment consistency, the link with the weakest consistency is located and the locking reason is generated.

Images